Ben Bradshaw: Equally the hon. Gentleman will understand that no Government ever give a commitment about what is in the Queen's Speech before any measure is actually in the Queen's Speech, so he would not expect me to do that. He is wrong to paint a picture of catastrophic decline in all our marine environment. Some of it is doing especially well. Of course, some fish stocks are over-exploited and we take steps to tackle that wherever can. However, the seas around many parts of our coastline are in better shape than at any time since before the industrial revolution. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Michael Jack: The Minister will understand that the welfare of broiler chickens and animals in general is affected by good investment in appropriate agricultural buildings. What representations did the Department make about the removal of the agricultural buildings allowance, especially the short phasing-out period of four years? It will clearly affect farming's ability to invest in good quality buildings for high standards of animal welfare.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will know that we already have high standards of broiler welfare in this country. Our poultry industry was keen for a level playing field throughout the European Union—that is one of the reasons for its support of the agreement. It will not affect our industry and the quality of its buildings. However, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman refers to an independent report by Lyons. It is not part of my responsibility, but I shall look into the matter and write to him.

David Miliband: Our compliance with the EU emissions trading scheme has been excellent and is worth some 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005 to2007. Phase 2 is set to deliver an additional 29 million tonnes of carbon reduction every year. The scheme is a key part of our strategy for tackling CO2 emissions to meet our long-term goal of at least a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050 on 1990 levels. We are also working with other countries that want to develop similar approaches.

David Miliband: I certainly will. This morning, I had meetings with the premiers of two Australian states—South Australia and Victoria. They are pushing hard for the development of Australian schemes that are based on the cap and trade system that we have used in Europe. It was interesting to hear from them that they want an Australian scheme, or state-by-state scheme in Australia, to follow the European model. They want not necessarily to join the EU scheme but to create the possibility of enabling the schemes to be linked. That is a positive development. In the United States, as well as Australia and elsewhere, an urgent debate is taking place about how those countries develop their own schemes and expand the range of industries that are involved. I know that my hon. Friend is interested in that.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises two important points. The first guarantee is by making sure that there is a proper carbon price. She will know that at the moment the carbon price for phase 1 of the emissions trading scheme is €1 or below, which is not the sort of price that we need. However, it is very significant that for the period 2008 to 2012 carbon is trading at €19.5 to €20 a tonne—a much steadier and significant price.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend refers to the importance of offsetting schemes genuinely reducing the amount of carbon dioxide. She will agree that Government standards are important in that area, although the Government obviously do not run all the schemes. When we in DEFRA produced a standard earlier this year, on which we are currently consulting, we found that 56 of the 60 available schemes did not currently meet the standards that we wanted. Only four did; all the details are on the DEFRA website. We certainly want to move to a situation in which anyone offsetting their emissions knows with confidence that it will lead to genuine emissions reduction around the world.

Christopher Huhne: Given that the range of estimates for the social and environmental cost of carbon is anything from a minimum in the Stern review of €25 up to €70 or so, and even though we have seen a welcome tightening of the price, as the Secretary of State says, at €18 in the second phase, the reality is that as we came into the Chamber this morning the current price for the current phase was 31 cents per tonne, which sends out a pretty appalling signal. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Council needs to try to tighten the price in the current phase as well as deal with the next phase? Is, indeed, the tightness of the next phase adequate and what measures is he urging on his colleagues in the Council to improve the scheme?

Adrian Bailey: Will the Secretary of State continue to resist the attempts of some European countries to oppose the tighter national allocation plans on carbon levels in phase 2? Will he also examine the potential for a sector-by-sector scheme to recognise the different basic carbon potential for different sectors of industry, in order that one does not suffer in relation to another?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with some expertise on these matters. Significant consideration has been given to auctioning, although it is for each national Government to decide the level of auctioning that will take place. In this country, it will be 7 per cent. There is a widespread view that the use of auctioning is an important part of the future of the scheme, and it is significant that the European Commission should now be encouraging nation states to take that forward. Phase 3 of the scheme will be under discussion soon and, given the united UK position across business, non-governmental organisations and Government on the EU-ETS manifesto, I believe that we shall see further discussion of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

Ben Bradshaw: Legislation requiring an increasing proportion of packaging to be recycled and outlawing excessive packaging helps to reduce packaging. The supermarkets have agreed voluntary measures to reduce packaging. We will announce further measures shortly when we publish our new waste strategy.

Si�n James: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have received correspondence from a constituent, Chris James, who has recently come back from a family holiday in America, where she compared shopping in Wal-mart in America with shopping in her local supermarket in Swansea. She was particularly struck by the fact that in America there was so little packaging and that all the fresh produce was displayed with a minimum of packaging. When she got back home, she noticed a significant difference in the amount that she had to dispose of or recycle. Will the Minister speak to the supermarkets with a view to reaching an agreement on some kind of standardisation for packaging? We need to encourage them to take these steps.

Ben Bradshaw: Personally, I would rather that Waitrose never hand out a disposable bag again, and I think that all other retailers should adopt the same policy. Those in this country that have adopted the policy have seen a dramatic fall in the issue of one-way disposable bagsnot just plastic but other bags. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that, a couple of months ago, we got the supermarkets to sign up to an agreement to reduce the environmental impact of all disposable bags by 25 per cent. over the next two years. Consumers also have a role, and he and other Members may like to reflect on their behaviour as consumers in relation to packaging and bags, to complain to retailers and to make it clear that packaging is sometimes excessive.

Phyllis Starkey: The issue is not just reducing the amount of packaging but the materials used in that packaging. Many councils will not recycle much plastic packaging. Is there pressure on supermarkets to think about using that type of packaging that can be easily recycled in preference to that which cannot?

Ben Bradshaw: I always want to consider interesting and constructive ideas. It may have passed the hon. Gentleman's notice, although not that of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made such an announcement at the Oxford farming conference earlier this year. The difficulty in relation to the carbon footprint of different foodstuffs is that we simply do not have the evidence base yet to introduce a credible system that would be adopted by all the retailers. Retailers are also interested in the issue, and we are working with all of them to try to agree a standard measurement, so that we avoid the problem, which was mentioned earlier, of having a plethora of carbon offsetting schemes but no real standard in which consumers can be confident. We have wanted to introduce such a scheme for a long time, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now jumped on the bandwagon.

Ben Bradshaw: You have made very well the point that I was about to make, Mr. Speaker. We have spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of packaging, and quite right too.
	My hon. Friend is right to remind the House, and some in the media, that some packaging is good for the environment. Food does not go to waste that would otherwise go to waste, which in itself would be wasteful. However, other Members are right to say that there needs to be a balance. Enough of us come across enough examples of produce that is over-packaged to make it important that retailers and legislators are addressing the issue.

Air Travel (VAT)

Adam Holloway: I think that it will be the Labour movement that, in time, will be sad that the Secretary of State did not stand for the leadership of the Labour party.
	In February this year the Government increased air passenger duty, but it has been described by one of the Government's own members as
	a blunt instrument... not... designed for environmental ends.
	Can the Minister tell us when the Government will tackle the issue properly?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of aviation to the UK economy and he gives a good example of the growth and success of Manchester airport. As a Government, we must have a sustainable policy on aviation. We should not be against aviation any more than we are against the cement industry, aggregates, construction, telecommunications or chemicals. Clearly it is important that aviation, like other sectors of the economy, takes responsibility for reducing its carbon emissions, which is why putting aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme is the best way forward. We have been responding to the European Commission's proposals on aviation and we hope to see significant progress later this year, in accordance with the timetable laid out by the Commission.

Ian Pearson: Domestic aviation is included in the UK's greenhouse gas inventory. International aviation and shipping are not because there is no international agreement on definitions. There is scope to amend the Climate Change Bill to allow the introduction of aviation and shipping, but we need international agreement on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from aviation and shipping. In the meantime, putting aviation into the EU ETSthe UK would support the inclusion of shippinghas to be the next best step. If we can achieve agreement through the International Civil Aviation Organisation to get global action on aviation, that would be much the best for everyone.

Ian Pearson: It is incredible that Opposition Members oppose the climate change levy, which will have more of an impact in a week in terms of reducing carbon emissions than the current Conservative proposal to put VAT on domestic aviation would do in a year, while opposing the increase in air passenger duty, which will save 2.75 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2010-11more in one month than putting VAT on domestic flights, as the original question suggests, will do in a year. This is a nonsense of a Conservative policy

David Miliband: An invitation to meet some farmers who think that I am doing a particularly good job is an invitation not to be refused. I am sure that there are a large and growing number of them, in Chorley and elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point. Last year, for those payments delayed beyond 30 June interest payments were available. We are not yet at the stage where we have to consider that again, but I can assure him that we are trying to get as many payments out as soon as possible; I reaffirmed our commitment to as fast as possible payment in my statement on Tuesday. Obviously, we take our responsibilities very seriously towards those who have not received payments.

Anne McIntosh: I commend the Secretary of State for the work that he is doing. However, he amusingly stated in his written statement that the Rural Payments Agency
	chief executive is taking a number of other steps to further streamline processing of claims.[ Official Report, 15 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 29WS.]
	Does he find it acceptable that 22,000 claims from 2005 have still not been sorted out? Is part of the problem that two agencies are involvedthe Environment Agency for the compliance aspect and the RPA for the payments aspect? Please will he ensure that whoever the next Prime Minister is, they make this matter a responsibility of a Minister in this place rather than the other place, so that we can scrutinise that Minister on the Floor of the House?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words on the work that I have tried to do. I hope she will agree that Lord Rooker has done exemplary work in this area. I am very happy to speak in this House on the successes and failures of the RPA, and it is right that the hon. Lady questions me on these issues.
	In respect of the specific point that the hon. Lady raised, from what she said an inference could be drawn by people following this debate that 22,000 people had received no money at all for 2005. That is not the case. I want to make it clear that there remain 22,000 people who have appealed against the level of claim that they have been givenin other words, their claims are being reviewed. There are 24 who received no money in 2005, mainly to do with cases of probate which have always arisen. In respect of the 22,000, of course we want to get the reviews completed as quickly as possible. I was able to report on Tuesday that the number had decreased from 25,000 to 22,000.
	The hon. Lady is right to be anxious and passionate on behalf of her constituents to get the money paid. I assure her that I am equally anxious and passionate to do that. I want to do so in a way that is consistent with our 2006 payments, and also with the rules that we have urged on the European Commission for a long time for careful and appropriate payments under the common agricultural policy. We want to stick to those rules so that we can urge them on others.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will certainly look into the matter with Lord Rooker and write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House.

Nicholas Winterton: My constituency has a number of hill farms and marginal land. Will the Secretary of State respond to the question put by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), because interest payments are different from compensation? The right hon. Gentleman will know that farmers are under huge pressure financially and in dire financial difficulty. Where payments are long delayed, will he ensure that there are alternative methods of giving some form of financial help, not just by paying interestalthough little has been paid outbut by compensation?

Nigel Evans: If the Secretary of State is to visit Chorley, perhaps he could leave a little time in his diary to come next door into the Ribble Valley where he may hear a different story. One of my farmers wrote to me:
	how can any business plan for the future, or even a month ahead, without knowing when monies owed to their businesses is going to be paid? Farming is hard enough, with livestock prices the same, or even less than they were twenty years ago.
	That is the point. If people who work for the Rural Payments Agency were told that they were only going to get part payment of their salaries and that they would not know when they were to receive it, would that focus their attention to ensure that the monies that farmers are owed are paid on time?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman could actually be quoting from what I said when I first came to this job last year about the imperative of giving farmers confidence about how much money they will get and when. I completely agree that they are absolutely right to say that basic business planning depends on basic competence on the part of DEFRA and all its agencies. I am in complete agreement with him about that. This year, as promised, farmers received 70 per cent. of total funds paid out by the middle of March, compared to 15 per cent. last year; but they are right to continue to want 100 per cent. as fast as possible and the hon. Gentleman will not be able to outbid me in the rhetoric he applies to the importance of getting that done. As for future campaign visits to Ribble Valley, I look forward to taking on many of the marginal Conservative seats in a future election.

Andrew Robathan: May Iunusuallycommend the noble Lord Rooker for his excellent and welcome policy of holding meetings for Members of Parliament? I am a farmer, an interest which I declare, and receive the single farm payment, so two weeks ago I telephoned the Rural Payments Agency in Newcastle where a charming young lady told me, I'm afraid there's a huge backlog of pre-populated forms for the single farm payment yet to go out, so I'll send you an empty one. I eventually received my form but it was only half filled in, so I am afraid that the Secretary of State must acknowledge that the RPA system remains poor. I know the process is not easy, but the system remains poor so I hope he will tell the House that he will examine it very carefully.

Peter Ainsworth: Even though I come from south of Watford, I, too, am an avid reader of the  Yorkshire Post. The Secretary of State may have overlooked the front page headline in yesterday's edition: British farmers 90 million worse off in subsidy fiasco.
	When the Secretary of State took over his role about a year ago, he brought to it a refreshing candour; he started going round apologising for the rural payments fiasco, but we have recently learned that the Government's performance during the year that he has been in charge has actually got worse. If he goes on like that, he will be Foreign Secretary by July. Does he remember telling the Royal Show last year that he would find it difficult to look farmers in the eye until the single payment scheme was properly sorted out? When does he expect to look farmers in the eye? To put it another way, when does he expect to be able to start using the gents toilets at farmers' events rather than the ladiesfor fear of meeting angry farmers in the gentsand, finally, does not the fact that he does so show how little he understands the nature of farmers' wives?

Jessica Morden: I very much welcome the Minister's response. It is important that we as individuals are encouraged to monitor our carbon footprint and to reduce it by doing things such as recycling, but it is also important that we know the impact and the effectiveness of different recycling methods? Will the Minister support the campaign for real recycling in its calls for an audit of the different recycling schemes in use across the country?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend has a point when he says that the Government talk sometimes about carbon, sometimes about CO2 and sometimes about greenhouse gases. It would be helpful if we could have more consistency and talk about carbon dioxide. Interestingly, the research work that we have done tends to suggest that people understand the concept of CO2 and a carbon footprint. That is why we have launched the act on CO2 campaign. The work that we did before we launched it confirmed that that has a resonance with people, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to take steps to make it easier for people to measure their CO2 footprint. That is what the new web-based calculator that we are launching soon will do.

Gordon Banks: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that international agreements are the only way forward when it comes to our goal to tackle to climate change? Does he also agree that the UK has a responsibility to ensure that the developing nations do not go down the same faulty road that we did when our economies were developing? Does he accept that the opportunities offered by climate change technology allow a great possibility of a boom in the UK economy?

Jack Straw: The business of the House for the week commencing 21 May will be as follows:
	Monday 21 MaySecond Reading of the Further Education and Training Bill  [Lords]. There is also expected to be a statement on the planning White Paper.
	Tuesday 22 MayConclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, followed by if necessary considerations of Lords Amendments.
	Wednesday 23 MayOpposition Day [12th Allotted Day], there will be a debate entitled Independent Inquiry into the Conduct of the Scottish Parliamentary Elections, followed by a debate entitled Effectiveness of the DTI. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion. There is also expected to be a statement on the energy White Paper.
	Thursday 24 MayMotion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	Friday 25 MayThe House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing4 June will include:
	Monday 4 JuneSecond Reading of the Legal Services Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 5 JuneThere will be a debate on Darfur on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	I want to make two brief statements. First, I draw Members' attention to the fact that the House agreed last night the dates appointed for the tabling and answering of written questions and for any written ministerial statements in September. We will remind the House about that in due course, but questions can be tabled on 3, 5 and 10 September for answer on 10,12 and 17 September respectively.
	Last week, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on freedom of information, I made comments in which I said that
	the way that some journalists and the Information Commissioner are acting means that
	the intention of the Freedom of Information Act
	is not being met in practice.[ Official Report, 10 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 298.]
	Those remarks reflected a general concern that I have about the scope of some of the decisions interpreting the Act, but my comments were ambiguous and could have implied that the Information Commissioner had made rulings on the issue of MPs' correspondence or that he was acting in some way beyond his statutory responsibilities. He has not done that in any way, and he has made no rulings in respect of MPs' correspondence.
	If I may say so, the commissioner, Richard Thomas, does a difficult job very well. I would like to offer my sincere apologies to him.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business.
	I note that the right hon. Gentleman says that a statement on the energy White Paper is expected on Wednesday, the day of an Opposition debate. As he knows, Government statements should not be made in Opposition time, so will he look again at the timing of that statement?
	This week, John Howard instructed Australia's cricket team not to tour Zimbabwe. That firm decision contrasts with the lack of direction from this Government when England's last tour went ahead. The right hon. Gentleman was then Foreign Secretary. England is due to play Zimbabwe later this year, in 2008 and in 2009. Meanwhile, the appalling crisis in that country is getting worse. Will the Foreign Secretary make a statement to clarify the Government's position?
	On Tuesday, the Department for International Development published its first annual report to include the requirements of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. Many hon. Members want the report to be debated every year on the Floor of the House, and last week, in response to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), the Leader of the House said that he would give active consideration to a debate. Can he now give a date for the debate?
	Can we have a debate on standards in government? The Secretary of State for International Development owns shares in a company that works for his Department. That appears to be in breach of the ministerial code. Almost a month ago, I wrote to the Chancellor

Theresa May: In that case, can we have a debate on police targets? While more serious crimes go unpunished, Home Office targets are forcing the police to arrest more people. A bride was arrested on her wedding day for criminal damage after crashing into a car park barrier, a child was arrested for throwing buns at a bus, and a man was cautioned for being in possession of an egg with intent to throwpresumably the police were called before the Deputy Prime Minister could get to him.
	Can we have a debate on the relationship between the trade unions and Government policy? It is reported today that the trade unions will effectively decide the Labour party leadership and in return, a union official has revealed, they expect a successor to the Warwick agreement. That agreement led to taxpayers' money being given to unions, which in turn, of course, give money to the Labour party. We need a debate.
	The average accident and emergency unit serves 250,000 people, but an NHS report says that an A and E department needs to be supported by between 450,000 and 500,000 people. That would mean the closure of A and E departments across the country. The Health Secretary denies responsibility, but that report was described as national guidance. When it suits her, the Health Secretary says that she is in control of the NHS; when it does not, she says that she is not responsible. Will the right hon. Lady come to the House to clarifythe Government's position, and can we have a debate on the meaning of ministerial responsibility?
	It is now certain that the Chancellor will be the next Prime Minister, but because of Labour party rules we have to wait weeks for him to take office, with the country and the Cabinet in limbo. Who will make prime ministerial statements in this House for the next few weeks? [Hon. Members: The Prime Minister.] Which one? The pensions system is in crisis, the NHS is in deficit, and the Prime Minister will negotiate a European treaty that the Chancellor spins he will reject. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to go, and go now?

Jack Straw: No, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that the police were chasing trivial criminal acts. I crossed the other matter off my list the moment that you ruled it out of order.
	It must be remembered that in one case, a fatal accident involving a bus was caused by a person doing something apparently trivial, namely, throwing something at a bus and distracting the driver. The scare stories that appear in the newspapers are not always as they seem.
	On trade unions and Government policy, I am sure that I heard the right hon. Lady say that the trade unions will decide the Labour party leadership. Well, that is wrongMembers of Parliament have, in practice, decided the Labour party leadership, and if I may do so from a position of total independence, I offer my congratulations to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the overwhelming vote of confidence that he received.
	I have two last points, one of which concerns the issue that has been raised about accident and emergency departments. That is a Conservative scare story that has no basis in fact. What the right hon. Lady needs to understand is that accident and emergency provision is changing because medicine is changing. There is more care closer to home, wherever that is safely possible. For example, in emergency care, practitioners from ambulance trusts are treating people at home, rather than those people having to go to accident and emergency departments. Some care takes place in specialist centres, and those centres have a far better record in dealing with people who face serious conditions such as stroke and heart attacks. The question for the whole House is whether we want to freeze the existing confederation of accident and emergency provision services in the knowledge that patients will suffer, or whether we want to ensure more local accident and emergency service provision, but some specialist centres, too. There is no national plan whatever.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady said that the Government were now in limbo, and asked who will make decisions and statements as Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is the Prime Minister and will stay Prime Minister until 27 June, when there will be a transfer. The right hon. Lady often leads with her chin; today is not the day to talk about a party being in limbo or disarray, because the disarray caused to the Conservative party by yesterday's announcement on grammar schools is quite extraordinary. It has been damned as a rehashed announcement by the former Opposition leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and damned again by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who said,
	I have always supported more grammar schools.
	It has been condemned by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said that the announcement was unforgivable

Jack Straw: I am about to offer the Conservatives a debate in Government time on the disarray in the Conservative party. [Hon. Members: Very generous.] Yes, we are very generous.
	May I make two final points? The hon. Member for North Thanet asked a very important question of Conservative members of the shadow Cabinet that should be included in this debate. He said:
	I ask every Conservative member of the shadow Cabinet who has endorsed Mr. Willetts' view whether they will give a clear undertaking that they are not sending and will not send their own children or grandchildren to public schools.
	That is a very important question. No wonder  The Spectatorthe house magazine of the Conservative partyis saying in this week's edition that the Conservative party is now in the grip of Tory toffs.

David Heath: I suppose that it is appropriate to offer congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, in his role as campaign manager, on finally winning the marginal seat through the vote of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), which, as I understand it, secured victory.
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for notice of the statements on the planning and energy reviews, consistent with what he said earlier. It is however a great shame that we were not given proper notice of the statement following business questions today on the Post Office review. We all knew that it would happen some time this week, but Members, who have a great interest in this matter, were not given proper notice of it. Is it not therefore inevitable that we need a debate on the Post Office review, as well as the statement? Apparently, the review will involve the closure of 2,500 post offices, many of which are disproportionately located in rural areas such as mine. We want our opportunity to have a proper debate on the consequences.
	If the Leader of the House had been here earlier for questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he would have heard a lively exchange on excess packaging. May we have a debate on that issue, and not only on the absurdities that we hear about such as coconuts and swedes being wrapped in plastic and a melon being labelled as produce of more than one country? Is there not at least a suspicion that a lot of such excess packaging is based on a commercial imperative of making people purchase more of a product than they actually need? That being the case, may we have a debate, and will the right hon. Gentleman give parliamentary time for the Retail Packaging (Recycling) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), which will give us the parliamentary opportunity to do something about it?
	Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) did not ask for a debate on education, but as the right hon. Gentleman rather did the subject to death, I shall not pursue not. However, we oughtto give an opportunity to Conservative Back Benchers to have their say about the change in the policy on grammar schools.
	Lastly, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed the perplexing comment by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday [Interruption.] Indeed, there were many, and let us hope that we never have another session quite like that. He said at one point that he was hoping to delay time. That opens up a new future for him as a time lord.
	If the Government are in the process of delaying time during the interregnum when we have two Prime Ministers, one in office and one waiting, is it not an opportunity for the Leader of the House to clear the decks and enact some of the thoughts that he has been putting forward to improve the performance of Parliament, in addition to the U-turn on the royal prerogative that he announced last week? One of the interesting things about U-turns is what is left washed up on the beach when the tide comes in. In this case it was the Lord Chancellor who was left washed up. Can the Leader of the House find time for a review of parliamentary procedures on a wider scale, so that we can make this Parliament more effective and more relevant? He has the time to do it. Will he make sure that it happens?

Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend heed the call from 216 Members of the House who signed early-day motion 866 in my name to find time to debate and give a Second Reading to my Safeguarding Runaway and Missing Children Bill?
	 [That this House believes that protecting vulnerable children is core business of Government; notes research by the Children's Society indicates that 100,000 children each year runaway or go missing from home or care, of whom 12 per cent. are running from abuse and around eight per cent. are hurt or harmed while away; further notes the contents of the Ten minute Rule Bill which would safeguard runaway or missing children; and calls on the Government to seek a legislative opportunity for the House to consider the Bill at an early date.]
	The Bill comes before the House tomorrow in its second attempt to get a Second Reading. I hope my right hon. Gentleman will look carefully to find time, so that we can achieve essential progress on the Bill and protect vulnerable children who need us to be professional and speedy in response to their needs.

Jack Straw: First, I put on the record our appreciation to my hon. Friend for all the work that she has been doing over many years in respect of missing children and the need to provide better safeguards. I know that she is to meet our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education shortly. I will take full account, as will my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, of what she has just said.

James Clappison: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Leader of the House aware that last Thursday was the fifth anniversary of the Potters Bar derailment, which took place in my constituency? Is he aware that, since then, there has been no public inquiry? A coroner's inquest is still awaited and some of the families have experienced grave difficulty in obtaining proper compensation. We have had a number of Adjournment debates on the subject. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on railway safety and the compensation system?

Jack Straw: The Scottish Parliament and Executive have certain functions in respect of the economy; that is a matter for them. The United Kingdom Parliament and Government have other functions. It might help if I state that the terms of the devolution settlement have been altered neither by the election results in Scotland or Wales nor by the election of a new First Minister in Scotland yesterday. It has always been recognised inthe devolution settlement, not least because of proportional representation, that parties different from the Westminster Government can and will hold office. For example, over recent years mechanisms have allowed Liberal Democrat shadow Ministers to work effectively with their Labour counterparts at Westminster.

John Penrose: In his answer to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about our having two Prime Ministers, the Leader of the House gave a technical, black-letter lawyer's answer, which I am sure was procedurally absolutely correct. Does he accept, however, that there is a wider constitutional question about what might happen, for example, if during the next six weeks there is some kind of crisisnational or internationaland the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister disagree on what must be done? Who will be in charge, and how are we to avoid paralysis?

Jack Straw: I do not accept that for a moment. There have often been such transitions. There has been a change of Prime Minister between general elections on five previous occasions, four of which happened totake place under Conservative Administrations.  [ Interruption . ] The period was shorter, but it was not non-existent. No problems arose then, and I do not anticipate any problems arising this time.

Jack Straw: I am sorry if that is the case because I drew the matter to my right hon. Friend's attention. He was pretty busy for a timehe is double hattedbut I shall follow it up immediately.

Jack Straw: There is a big, continuing problem, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [Interruption.] Here he is, bearing good news as ever. The matter is not directly the Government's responsibility but, of course, we will follow it up.
	May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and other members of the parliamentary choir on being in great voice at yesterday's performance of Mozart's Requiem, and say how well he delivered the bouquet to one of the fine singers at the front?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the public's feelings about so-called trivial offences, which might explain Conservative Members' reluctance to back the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and their pouring scorn on antisocial behaviour orders. All the evidencefrom the United States, here and other countriesshows that so-called low-level crime must be nipped in the bud. What might be trivial to the hon. Gentleman, living away from estates, can be serious for the people who suffer from those crimes. Police officers make the judgments and, far from making decisions without the public's consent, pressure from the public to deal with low-level disorder is typically the reason nowadays that the police properly arrest people. The offences might seem trivial to an out-of-touch Conservative Member of Parliament, but they are important to those who have to live with that stuff.

David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on finding time for a debate on Darfur when we come back after the Whitsun recess. Sadly, in all the months that it has taken to hold the debate, the position has got worse. I hope that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development can give some positive news on what the British Government are doing to try to bring about an effective peace settlement, given that the existing one is not worth the paper it was written on.

Denis MacShane: May we have an early debate on relations with Russia? Many hon. Members and the Leader of the House will have seen the front page of  The Guardian, which reports Russia's declaration of cyber war on an EU member state. That country has already declared economic war by not allowing trade in food products with EU member states. Energy wars have been talked aboutperhaps even polonium wars, with the as yet unresolved problem of the death of Mr. Litvinenko here. I have a letter from the Duma that was sent to all hon. Members who serve on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which meets in 10 days. Frankly, its language of hostility to the western democracies takes us back to 1939 and 1940. I want good relations with Russia; we want open trade with Russiamy right hon. Friend worked hard as Foreign Secretary for such good relationsbut something bad and sad is happening. We need to discuss it and send a clear message that good relations with Russia must be two way.

Nigel Evans: I will raise a pint of Thwaites to the Leader of the House to mark his great success in the leadership election campaign, but he should clarify who now really speaks for this country. Prime Minister A will go to Germany to discuss the EU constitutional treaty, which will be handed as a fait accompli to Prime Minister B who, we understand, might not hold the same views on European matters as Prime Minister A. Perhaps the best way to resolve the problem would be for Prime Minister B to announce that the British people will be given a referendum, as Prime Minister A promised in the first place.

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office. Last December, I published the Government's proposals on the future of the post office network. We then consulted and received more than 2,500 responses. I am today publishing the Government's final proposals and can now set out how we intend to proceed. Copies of the Government's response to the consultation and our response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report are available in the Vote Office.
	Post offices play an important social and economic role in the communities they serve and the Government are determined to maintain a national post office network, allowing people to have reasonable access across the whole country. New technology, changing lifestyles and wider choice of ways of getting services mean that people are using post offices less. The network's losses are now running at almost 4 million a weekdouble what it was two years agoand that will increase further unless action is taken to make the network more sustainable. As the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and others have recognised, the present network is unsustainable, which is why change is needed.
	Without continuing public support, a purely commercial Post Office would see fewer than 4,000 branches. That cannot be allowed to happen, which is why the Government are providing substantial financial support to maintain a national network. Although the proposals I am confirming today will see the closure of about 2,500 branches, the remaining Post Office network will still be larger than all the UK's banks and building societies put together. We want to maintain a national network, so we are putting in place rules that will provide for reasonable access across the whole country. We will give Post Office Ltd the ability to shape the network for the future with clearly defined access criteria to ensure that the right post offices are in the right place to maximise their business. The rules governing access are set out in detail in the response we are publishing today and will guarantee reasonable access in both urban and rural areas, with additional protection for more deprived urban areas and some of the more remote rural areas.
	People were understandably concerned that these changes should be implemented in a sensible way. So, in addition to taking into account obvious obstacles such as rivers or motorways, the Post Office will also consider, in putting forward its proposals, the availability of public transport, alternative access to key post office services and the impact on local economies. It will have to demonstrate how those factors have been considered in each local consultation.
	Most respondents welcomed the proposal to extend outreach arrangements to provide postal services to small and remote communities. The Government will therefore ensure that, building on the success of mobile post offices and postal services provided in village halls, community centres and even pubs, 500 new outreach locations will be provided. In some areas, it will be possible to deliver services to people's homes. We also want to encourage community ownership. There are already some 150 thriving community-owned shops, many of which already incorporate post offices. It is clear in the comments received that there is widespread interest, so the Post Office will work with interested parties to encourage expansion. We also want the Post Office to work with credit unions to develop services further.
	Key to ensuring the success of the Post Office, of course, is encouraging greater use of post offices. The Post Office will be given every opportunity to pursue Government business and the network changes will put it on a stronger footing to do so. We will encourage the Post Office to look at further scope for co-locating with other community services, including local government services. Councils will be involved in the proposed changes to the network and that should provide an opportunity to explore ways for them to play a greater role in future in deciding how best to provide post office services to the public.
	In addition, the Post Office wants to expand its financial services. It is already the leading supplier of foreign currency exchange and has already increased the availability of its euro-on-demand service to 6,500 branches. It is the third largest provider of travel insurance; it insured one in 50 cars on the road last year; and one in every 25 credit cards were issued by the Post Office. The instant saver account, introduced in April last year, has 175,000 accounts with deposits totalling 1.8 billion. In addition, cash will be available through some 4,000 free-to-use ATMs being introduced at branches across the network. Paystation terminals are also now in 7,500 post offices. All those measures should encourage greater use of post offices.
	The current Post Office card account contract ends in March 2010. As the House is aware, the Government have decided that a new account will succeed it after 2010. It will be available nationally and customers will be eligible for the account on the same basis as they are now. I can confirm that the Department for Work and Pensions will today invite tenders for a successor to the Post Office card account to be available nationally, and customers will be eligible for that account on the same basis as they are now. Customers using the successor product should be able to get their cash at ATMs, as well as across the counter. It is our aim that the opening of the new accounts will be streamlined and the process made simpler for customers. The Government remain committed to allowing people to get their pension or benefit in cash at the post office if they choose to do so, and there is a range of Post Office accounts available, including the Post Office card account, to make that possible.
	The Post Office is determined to increase its range of products and business. I can tell the House today that the Post Office will be launching a broadband service later this year in partnership with BT. That will enable it to become a key player in the broadband-based services market, offering Post Office broadband services to the public.
	The Government have invested 2 billion since 1999 to support the network. Subject to state aid approval, we will now provide a further 1.7 billion up to 2011, including support of up to 150 million a year for the social network. Beyond that, there will be a continued need for public funding of the social network. Where it makes sense, the Post Office will accommodate the wishes of those who want to leave and the national federation has now come to an agreement over how the compensation package will be administered.
	These measures are complemented by steps that the Post Office is taking to modernise the commercial network, returning Crown post offices to profitability and providing new products. As I told the House last year, of the 14,000 post offices in the UK, only the 458 Crown post offices are actually owned by the Post Office, which has to address the huge losses in this part of the network70 million last year alone. The network has always relied on other businesses to complement the postal business, so in order to keep open as many post offices as possible, it has entered into an agreement with WH Smith to transfer 70 Crown post offices into their shops. That will ensure that those post offices stay open.
	The changes that I am outlining today will be implemented over an 18-month period from this summer. In order to manage the process, there will be around 50 to 60 area proposals based mostly on groupings of parliamentary constituencies, but the Post Office and Postwatch will be able to adopt different approaches where it would be better to do so. In developing its proposals for public consultation, the Post Office will develop plans together in consultation with Postwatch, sub-postmasters and local authorities.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will be given advance notice of area proposals in line with the arrangements made in relation to the urban programme three years ago. That will be followed by each plan being subject to a six-week public consultation, providing people with an opportunity to give their views. After the consultation, Postwatch will consider the responses and the specific issues raised. There is also provision for further discussions and review by the Post Office and Postwatch before final decisions are reached. Final closure decisions will be made by Post Office Ltd.
	I said last year that we wanted to give local authorities and devolved Administrations a greater say in shaping the future network. We will therefore work with them to consider how we can best make that happen. The majority of people in this country want us to maintain a national network of post offices. I believe that the proposals set out today will do that and I commend them to the House.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Nothing much seems to have changed since he outlined the proposals in December, and I am afraid that his statement confirms many people's worst fears that our post office network is about to be decimated. Will he tell us how many of the 2,500 responses to his consultation actually supported his proposals?
	The Government already hold the record for closing post offices faster than any other, and today's announcement amounts to an acceleration of that rate of closure, shutting a further 2,500 branches over the next two years. By the time of the next election, this Government will have closed more than one third of the entire post office network. What is more, 2,500 is not even the upper limit. As the Minister confirmed last month, it is the lower limit. Will the Secretary of State confirm that 2,500 is the number of compensated closures, and that he is offering no guarantee that other post offices will not close as well, without compensation? What is his estimate of the highest number of closures that we will see by 2010?
	This is a programme for compulsory closures. The design of the scheme means that even successful post offices might have to close just because of their geography. Successful sub-postmasters who have spent years building up their businesses might now be forced out by the Government. For some years, the Government have provided a subsidy to rural post offices. Today, they trumpet the continued subsidy, but it now goes to all post offices. It is therefore spread more thinly and will be far less focused on rural Britain. Is it not therefore the case that this statement signals the near-certain death of the village post office?
	The Government dress the closures up as meeting their proposed access criteria. The truth, however, is that those criteria are not entirely beneficial. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing. Of course we welcome the Government's decision to include public transport considerations, but the access criteria still protect only about one third of the network, and the Government have rejected the very idea of access criteria in the past.
	The Secretary of State announced 500 new outreach locations, but will he say a little more about how they will operate? Will they be anything more than just a van available for a couple of hours a week?
	It is now five months since the Secretary of State's original statement that 2,500 post offices were to close, yet the Government have still not told us which ones are for the chop. When will the list of closures be announced? Will he ensure that they are not carried out in such a way as to set post office against post office?
	What the Government should be announcing today is a policy of giving sub-postmasters greater freedom to find new business opportunities, encouraging local councils to see what services they can provide through post offices, and making the Post Office card account, which is so vital to the future of the network, a more flexible financial tool with much greater scope. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have rejected those options[Hon. Members: They have not.] Yes, they have.
	What this statement really means is the closure of more than one third of the post office network under this Government, countless villages losing their only shop, and millions of vulnerable people losing a service that they depend on. Little or no account will be taken of the needs of the elderly, the disabled or the most disadvantaged, and there is too little appreciation of the dedication of our sub-postmasters, who spend years building up their businesses and serving their communities. This announcement is a counsel of despair. This statement has no vision, and it signals the decimation of a network on which so many people depend.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman might have received my statement an hour or so ago, but he clearly did not read it. I hope that he got the formal response some time before that, but if he had read it, he would have seen that I agree with him that we should encourage councils to consider whether they can provide services through post offices. Because they will be involved in these proposals at an early stage, they will have ample opportunity to consider that.
	I said last December, and I repeated today, that we want to see a successor to the Post Office card account. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has published the public invitation to tender for that new card today. In relation to the other financial services, I mentioned foreign exchange, which is a hugely successful business in post offices. I also mentioned the announcement today between the Post Office and BTI heard the hon. Gentleman scoffing at that before he stood up to speakwhich will mean that the post office network will be able to sell access to a new product: Post Office broadband. That will give people another reason to go into post offices. BT recognises the value of having a shop-front up and down the country.
	Those are examples of how the Post Office, whose new chief executive is determined to open up new opportunities, is going out to find new business. The value of having a national network is that there can be national agreements to provide travel insurance, broadband services and so on, which individual postmasters could never negotiate on their own. That is something that the National Federation of SubPostmasters supports.
	As I said earlier, the Post Office will make roughly 50 to 60 area proposals. The whole objective is to ensure that the right post offices are in the right place for each area. At the moment, part of the problem is that two post offices can compete for a small amount of business in the same area. Any other business would organise itself so as to maximise opportunities for business, and that is what the Post Office will do.
	Yes, it is five months since I published my proposals, but it is absolutely astonishing that, in that time, the hon. Gentleman has not come up with a coherent position on behalf of the Conservatives. He has no answers to the problems: everyone knows that the Post Office has a problem as a result of people changing their habits, having their benefits paid into a bank or building society account, or renewing their tax discs online. Something had to be done about that. We are prepared to do it and, above all, we are prepared to make money available. The hon. Gentleman's real problem is that he knows full well that he cannot promise any such additional expenditure, because the Conservatives' economic policy would require him to cut public expenditure. That is why he cannot match what we are proposing today.

Susan Kramer: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement today. I regret that the consultation process has not led to a fundamental rethink. The Liberal Democrats have a fully funded rescue strategy for the Post Office [ Interruption. ] It is most unfortunate that the consultation proposed by the Secretary of State remains brief and unwieldy. Will he at least agree to delay the abolition of Postwatch so that full and proper support can be available for constituents attempting to deal with the crisis that will confront them?
	The Secretary of State has provided the number of voluntary closures, but will he confirm that I have read correctly that a post office that has closed voluntarily will not be re-opened unless it is required by the criteria? That would be incredibly bad news for many communities.
	Government business is absolutely key to the survival of the Post Office. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment that no more Government business will be withdrawn from the Post Office? If not, what further losses does he estimate?
	On new business, is my reading correct that Royal Mail's restriction on other delivery companies working with the Post Office will continue and has the Secretary of State's support? That would remove many of such new opportunities for post offices.
	The Post Office card accountPOCAgoes out to tender today, but will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no absolute certainty that the tender will be won by the Post Office? If it is not won by the Post Office, what contingency plan is in place?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no consultation on the closure of Crown post offices and their transfer to WH Smith, but only on what type of facilities will be available in WH Smith? Does he agree that that is outrageous? Will he please use his influence to make sure that a consultation does take place?
	How many small communities will lose their one remaining shop, which, essentially, survives only because of co-location to the post office? Has the Secretary of State done that work, and can he tell us the results?
	What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Department for Communities and Local Government on attracting local council activity into post offices, given that, as I understand it, he has now abandoned the Your Guide pilot, which was his main thrust for ensuring that that process took place?

Alistair Darling: First, the hon. Lady criticised the Post Office's decision to enter into a deal with WH Smith in relation to 70 Crown post offices, which means that those post offices will stay open. She contradicted herself a few moments later by saying that it was important that rural post offices had other businesses co-located to them, to get additional business. Surely we should do everything possible to get more people through the front door of post offices. I would have thought that the proposal for 70 Crown post offices to go into WH Smith would be welcomed, as more people are likely to use those post offices, and they will stay open.
	On the hon. Lady's point about access, which was also raised by the Conservative spokesman, the purpose of national criteria is to ensure that urban and rural areas have reasonable access to a post office. Therefore, if a post office closes, and the access criteria are no longer met, the Post Office will be required to open a new post office to take its place. I am trying to ensure that there is a coherent national network, which will have the opportunity to compete for Government or other business as well as providing services.
	The hon. Lady asked me to promise not to abolish Postwatch and to delay its transfer into the National Consumer Council. I am happy to tell her that I will do everything to ensure that Postwatch can discharge the functions that I want it to discharge. She might, however, want to have a word with her predecessor as trade and industry spokesman, as he called for the abolition of Postwatch, because, he said, it was useless. Now she is calling for it to be maintained. I suppose that that typifies the Liberal Democrats' problems.
	We do have to put the Post Office card account out to tenderthe hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrats are good Europeans, and they would surely agree with the European requirement that such things must be put out to tender. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions can simply award the contract to the person we want. A fair competition must take place.
	Lastly, whatever else the Liberal Democrats have, they do not have a coherent public spending programme that would allow them to finance the Post Office. It is disingenuous of the hon. Lady to suggest that she has such a programme.

Alistair Darling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have attempted to deal with many of the suggestions in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report, which was quite helpful. I know that the Committee wants a longer consultation period, but I am mindful of the fact that postmasters who have had a period of uncertainty want to know where they stand, and understandably so. I have set out a process that allows for those matters to be considered, even after the consultation process ends.
	In relation to unplanned closures, nobody can legislate against a postmaster or postmistress giving up their business. We should remember that the vast bulk of such shops are owned as private businesses. The access criteria mean, however, that if a post office closed, and the criteria were no longer fulfilled, the Post Office would have to open a new post office in its place. That is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee sought.
	In relation to other measures, such as the Post Office card account, people were understandably concerned a few months ago that we were not going to replace it. We have done so, and as I explained to the House today, there are signs that the Post Office will now aggressively pursue business, which I wish that it had done in years gone by. That is the best protection for the future.

Alistair Darling: The Post Office is entering into a long-term commitment with WH Smith. I know that there was great concern when Morrisons, in particular, abandoned the policy pursued by Safeway and effectively evicted the post offices, but WH Smith sees their services as complementary to the goods that it sells. The main objective must surely be to keep as many post offices open as possible. As I said earlier, the Crown post offices lost 70 million last year alone, and the Post Office must do something about that.
	The Liberal Democratswho do the same in other contextscannot say that they want more to be done to persuade people to walk through the front door of the post office, and then object every time a proposal comes along that would cause more customers to walk through that front door. To my mind, joint ventures and collaboration that makes more people go into post offices must be a good thing.

Nigel Evans: This is a bleak day, not just for the post office network but for rural villages up and down the country. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said that an average of four post offices were closing in each constituency. If that were the case, we would at least know roughly where we stood, but I suspect that some constituencies will be left untouched while those in rural villages are attacked. The closures seem to be taking place on a cost basis, because the post offices are losing 4 million a week. How much money does the Secretary of State expect to save at the end of the exercise, and what protection will rural post offices be given?

Alistair Darling: There are many example of innovation that have meant that post offices will build their business and maintain branches, if not open new ones. On jobcentres, I am very much aware that that network is being reduced as well. However, I think that I am right in saying that at the last election, the hon. Gentleman stood on a platform involving the wholesale closure of jobcentres.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State keeps repeating the obvious: that he cannot force people to use postal services. However, does he not understand that he can ensure that Departments do everything they can to put business the Post Office's way? The public cannot understand why on one hand we are putting in investment to keep the rural network going, while on the other hand we are taking away services that are losing the Post Office money.

Alistair Darling: The 13,000 post offices are private businesses. They are run by postmasters and postmistresses who either operate a post office as their exclusive business or, more usually, run one in conjunction with some other business activity. Only a tiny minority are community owned. When we last discussed these matters in December and then in the parliamentary debate in January, several Members pointed out that throughout the country there are a growing number of community businesses that are hugely successful. The point I made in my statement was that we ought to support them. We want to see if we can do more in that regard. The thrust of my statement was in support of the private sector. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that1.7 billion is a significant amount of support.

Alistair Darling: I am not sure that the analogy is entirely appropriate. My hon. Friend is right to say that throughout the country postmasters and mistresses show an extraordinary amount of flair and commitment. I mentioned the new chief executive of the Post Office who equally is showing admirable flair and winning new business, such as broadband, to which I referred. There is always room for improvement in any organisation, and where that improvement is necessary I hope that someone will make sure that it takes place.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 22nd January 2007 (Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order so shown.
	4. Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			  First Day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses relating to the reduction of regulatory burdens, the National Partnership Scheme, and the repeal of section 99 of the Local Government Act 2003; new Clauses and amendments relating to Chapter 1 of Part 5; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 13; new Clauses and amendments relating to Chapter 2 of Part 5; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 8; new clauses and amendments relating to Part 1; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 9. The moment of interruption. 
			  Second Day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Remaining proceedings on consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption. 
		
	
	We have a great deal to get through today, so I shall be brief. My reasons for moving the motion are straightforward and I hope that they will be welcomed in the interests of good debate.
	The Bill before us is wide ranging and important and we have provided two days for the debate, today and next Tuesday. I believe that the debate in Committee was robust, but on the whole consensual. We have reflected on the constructive contributions of Committee members and brought forward many of the amendments on the basis of responding to the Committee. I have also looked at where most of the interest of the Committee debates lies and tried to provide time accordingly, as well as in response to the contributions of the Committee and the spread of interest across the Bill.
	The motion departs from the normal order of consideration in that it allows for two days of consideration and spreads the areas of the Bill across the two days to ensure that the areas of most interest are given sufficient time for Members to contribute. The programme motion, as outlined in the five bullet points on the Order paper, amends the order that we passed on 22 January.

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
	  
	1st Allotted Day

Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that Sir Michael's contention about greater centralisation is reinforced by the answer to a parliamentary question I received recently, which reveals that the ring-fencing of local government budgets has risen from 1.6 billion in 1997 to7.2 billion in 2005?

Kelvin Hopkins: Apropos the hon. Gentleman's last comments, is it not important for the Government to try to ensure universality and equity across the country in the provision of services? Sometimes that might be at the expense of local freedom, but equity is important too.

Andrew Stunell: It is certainly right that there should be fair shares. I accept that. However, what many people find difficult to accept is the assumption that the way services are delivered, the volume of services, and even the price of services should be set by central diktat or regulation or be the subject of targets. The hon. Gentleman is not wrong, but there is always a tension between making sure that every person in the country gets exactly the same thing and allowing personal freedom and community choice some rein.
	At the moment, there is no doubt that in comparison with western Europe, and even more with our friends across the ocean in the United States, we have an excessively centralised country. I have sometimes used the example of Hampshire in this country and New Hampshire in the United States. The population of New Hampshire in the United States is less than the population of Hampshire in the United Kingdom, yet New Hampshire can set its own laws and taxes and can even set and vary its own criminal code up to and including the death penalty. I want to reassure hon. Members that I am not suggesting that Hampshire county councillors should have the liberty to impose the death penalty, although perhaps they would want that.
	A flourishing local democracy is the way to get community and individual engagement with our society. One of the strongest factors in people's failure to participate in democracy at a local level is that they think that it does not make any difference what they do or how they vote because councillors cannot do anything. I have to say that councillors tend to reinforce that view, because if things go wrong in their area, they always say, It's because the Government have stopped us. We need to get out of having local government in victim mode and we need to restore powers to our local communities.

Andrew Stunell: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Many people in local government find it difficult to understand the purpose of the targets they are asked to meet. Officers know that they have to meet the targets, because if they do not it would be difficult to go to another local authority and say, Please can I have job? I never met any of my targets in my last job. If one is a councillor, it is difficult not to work towards achieving targets, because the council will be slagged off in the press for not having the right number of stars. Councils might even be penalised in terms of grants and freedoms. This morning, I met a group of councillors from a number of local authorities who made the point quite strongly that when the whole performance culture was introduced, a clear signal was given that those who achieved the targets would get extra power, responsibility and freedom. They said that now that they face the next generation of targets, they cannot see why they should try hard to meet them because they did not get anything worth while when they met the original targets [Interruption.] The Minister will no doubt have the opportunity to explain not only what councils have had, but what they will get as the number of targets shrinks and they focus more accurately on things that matter.
	New clause 30 would simply set up a mechanism for developing a proper relationshipa constitutional relationship, if one likesbetween local government and central Government. It could lead on to measures of decentralisationindeed, it points in that directionsuch as a cull of the quangos that take up so much of central Government spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to a parliamentary question that he had asked about ring-fencing of funding for local authorities. Another aspect of the issue is the huge amount of spending from central Government that used to be channelled through local authorities, which had some discretion over its use, but is now spent by quangos of one sort or another. The Learning and Skills Council is often quoted as an example.
	We have been moved to bring the proposal back to the House for yet another go because we are not at all persuaded that the Government understand the need to set that constitutional framework and to protect both central Government and local government from all the distrust and misinterpretation in the current relationship. If the Minister rejects the new clause, what exactly does he propose instead? Are the Government really serious about the good intentions that have appeared time and again in his comments and those of the Secretary of State for a while?
	I do not know whether amendment No. 253 will be pressed, but my hon. Friends and I certainly support the intentions of the Bill, which are the genesis of that amendment. If the opportunity arises, we will support it.

Nick Raynsford: Given the grouping of the amendments, I shall not follow the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). Instead, I shall focus on my amendmentNo. 254, which deals with the inclusion of registered social landlords in the list of organisations that local authorities are required to consult as part of the preparation of a local area agreement.
	Local area agreements are a very important part of the current local government agenda. They are a vehicle for enabling greater discretion to be devolved to a local level and, above all, for ensuring closer co-operation between a local authority and its partners in the area. That is the way forward for local government in ensuring more joined-up delivery of services and better planning, bringing together the range of organisations that contribute to a huge variety of services and strategies that impact on the local community. I strongly support local area agreements and had the privilege of introducing the concept when I was Minister with responsibility for local government.
	I welcome the measures in the Bill that define more precisely the range of bodies that need to be consulted as part of the preparation of a local area agreement, but I am surprised that registered social landlords are not included, because they are hugely important to the delivery of one of the most important services to local communitieshousing. They are responsible for about half the total social housing stock in the country; they are developing and improving large numbers of homes in almost every area of the country; and they have a crucial role to play as partners in a variety of initiatives that will affect local communities, not only in the provision of housing and regeneration but in other areas. I have noticed the participation of registered social landlords in my own area in various measures designed to reduce crime, to work more closely with the police and to improve health outcomes. They have an integral role to play in many different areas, and it is curious that they are not listed.
	I can understand the argument, which my hon. Friend the Minister will probably use, that registered social landlords are not an authority. They are, in essence, individual bodies that do not have a statutory existence, so they should not be defined as an authority. However, given the huge range of bodies listed and the wide variety of services included, it seems odd that there is no reference to registered social landlords. I understand that this issue was raised in Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it some further thought. If he cannot accept the amendment to include registered social landlords in the list of bodies that must be consulted, I hope that some thought will be given to how local authorities will be advised to ensure that registered social landlords are not left out of an inclusive approach to better and more joined-up service delivery, to which they have a large contribution to make. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will give the amendment sympathetic consideration, even if he is not able to accept it.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention the fact that in our own county of Bedfordshire Labour regained control of Luton. I am sure that he was as pleased with that as I was.

Alistair Burt: I am not, but I am not surprised to hear that. The danger is that we can set formal limits, then along come sub-clauses A, B and C and, before we know where we are, there are new targets. I think that is what Simon Milton meant when he talked about target-creep and it is what we have in mind when we attempt to ensure that the Minister sticks to the Department's first belief expressed in the White Paperthat there should be a maximum number of, say, 35 targets for local area agreements, rather than the unlimited number that became the norm as the Bill proceeded.
	In that spirit, although we will not press amendment No. 171, we shall support new clause 29 as a symbol of the concerns of Conservative MPs and local government representatives throughout the country. The serious part of the earlier amusing diversion was to remind the House that, in terms of the number of councils and the number of seats held, the Conservative party represents more than all the other parties combined, including independents and others. When colleagues around the country speak of their concern about the burden imposed on them by central Government, they are speaking from a position of knowledge and significant authority. Taking new clause 29 as a symbol of the concerns expressed by local government about targets, burdens, regulatory creep and so on, we think it important to have a Division so that we can show our concern and, in so doing, express the hope that, as the Bill passes from this place to another, the Minister will consider further the legitimate concerns of local government representatives across the country and do more to address them.
	We are well aware of the burden and impact of the targets. They imply a lack of trust that those working at local level will do their job. That affects government across the board. The misery of the Secretary of State for Health yesterday has surely been compounded by the fact that what the Government sought to do in medical training reflects their sense of not quite trusting the senior people who have been in charge of training over the years and their desire to impose a bureaucratic system instead. The stories heard over the weekend about the police chasing up insignificant offences to reach targets is a further symbol of what happens when people become motivated solely by mechanistic targets, rather than being allowed the discretion they need as professionals to judge what is important in a community.
	Our aim is to attack the Government's desire to work in a centralised, directive manner in relation to local government and we have picked new clause 29 as a symbol of that. The Minister should not mistake the fact that many of the amendments tabled reflect the concern that there is too much national and not enough local, and too much determination to make decisions centrally in Whitehall rather than rely on local government expertise and what local people think to inform decisions. That is why we want to vote in support of the new clause.
	We are also interested in amendment No. 253, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) and to which several of my hon. Friends have put their name. It represents an important extension of the sense of local government devolution. The Minister knows that in Committee we discussed the relationship between this Bill and the Sustainable Communities Billa private Member's Bill. We believe that the latter represents genuine devolution of power, whereas the Government's Bill does not go as far as the Government think it does. Representatives of Unlock Democracy gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Peter Facey said:
	The Bill devolves power by giving powers to parish councils, and in relation to byelaws, and that is to be welcomed. However, with respect to the powers of Westminster, and in most policy areas, it reorganises the powers of local government and gives local government the ability to administer things better, but it does not actually shift power significantly downwards to local authorities or communities. [Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2007; c. 69.]
	We have previously debated the fact that we do not think that the Bill does what the Minister thinks it does. Amendment No. 253 provides an imaginative way for the Government to demonstrate that they really do believe in local community power by giving local authorities the ability to encourage more powerful energy conservation targets for new buildings in their areatargets that go beyond the national targets. The Government could extend discretion to the local level, enabling local people to express opinions on the vital issues of climate change and conservation.
	We should bear in mind the strictures of the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning. When we discussed home information packs yesterday, she made the point that our lack of support for the Government's proposals on HIPs was in contrast to what we believe about energy conservation. I now put the same point to the Minister for Local Government: if he does not support amendmentNo. 253, which his colleague, the hon. Member for Gower, tabled, it calls into question the Government's commitment to energy conservation and the like, and rather undermines the next Prime Minister's attempt to establish eco-homes. The Chancellor is going around the country talking vehemently about the environment, which he did not start to do until very recently. We will be very interested to hear the Minister's response on amendment No. 253, which we want to be accepted.
	The amendments deal with a variety of concerns about the powers of local councils and communities and their entitlement to more of a say and to be included. We welcome the extension of partnership, through local area agreements, to the bodies that have been mentioned, but we want it to be extended further. The Government have sought a couple of new powers. In Government amendments Nos. 93 and 94, there is a power to vary or revoke directions that was not included in the original Bill. I should be interested to know in what circumstances that power might be used. When the Minister gets a chance to reply, perhaps he will explain what is behind those powers, and say why they were introduced at this stage of the Bill, and not earlier.
	I shall conclude my remarks on this group of amendments in order to give others the chance to speak. I remind the Minister that there are amendments in the group that we could have pressed to a Division but that, for reasons of time, we will not do so. We back new clause 29; we see it as a symbol of the feeling in the House that although the Government believe that their centralist, directive power is being devolved in the Bill, the process has probably not gone far enough. On behalf of local government, we would like it to go much further. As I say, we will use that new clause as a symbol of the House's concern, and of the strength of the feeling among Conservative authorities and others outside the House that more needs to be done to demonstrate that the Government are truly devolutionist, and not centralist. Frankly, we just do not think that they can demonstrate that.

Martin Caton: I rise to speak to amendment No. 253, which is in my name and that of 80 other Members from across the House. As has already been mentioned, the amendment is really the progeny of a private Member's Bill that I introduced in the Chamber on 19 January, the Local Planning Authorities (Energy and Energy Efficiency) Bill, which, co-incidentally, will return to the Order Paper tomorrow. That Bill is about enabling local authorities better to contribute to tackling the problem of climate change using planning policy. If enacted, it would allow councils, if they so choose, to set higher standards for energy efficiency in their development plans than those laid down in building regulations, and it would allow them to make provision for sustainable energy and microgeneration requirements in the same document. An early-day motion supporting the Bill has now been signed by 302 Members of the House.
	Sadly, my Bill failed to find favour with the Government. In a number of meetings with Ministers, and in correspondence with me and other Members, we have been assured that the Government are sympathetic to its objectives, but we have been told that they will not give it a fair wind because they are consulting on their draft planning policy statement on climate change, and they think that it would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of that process by endorsing, implicitly or explicitly, my Bill. Secondly, they think that the subject would be better dealt with in Government legislation, rather than in a private Member's Bill.
	The consultation period on the draft planning policy statement ended on 8 March, and Ministers have had a fair amount of time in which to consider the responses. We now have the opportunity in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill to deal with the central issue in Government legislation, and that is what my amendment is intended to achieve. In part 5, chapter 1, which is on local area agreements, clause 81 deals with local improvement targets. My amendment specifies that energy efficiency and sustainable energy targets can be included in local agreements.
	As with my private Member's Bill, my amendment is about empowering local councils to meet the challenge of climate change, but it is also about encouraging them to act now; that is important. The clearest message to come out of the Stern review is the absolute need for urgency. We cannot afford to wait. The amendment is intended to give all local councils a green light, in every sense, to follow the lead of places such as Woking and Merton and set high environmental standards for new developments, both residential and non-residential.
	I welcome the policy of all new homes being zero carbon by 2016, and I welcome the Chancellor's proposals for new eco-communities, but to turn those concepts into reality, we need many more examplesand soonof low and zero-carbon homes to add to the very small number of experimental buildings that exist or are about to be constructed. One wayperhaps the best wayof achieving that goal is to enable and encourage local authorities to set high standards for energy efficiency and sustainable energy generation. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that she wants
	to see a scale of new development which will deliver economies of scale and bring down costs of environmental technologies.
	If the amendment were to become part of the Bill, and then the Act, it would help to stimulate exactly that scale of new development.
	At the moment, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the local government family about whether local government can set the sorts of standards that I am proposing. Some councils have been allowed to specify high standards for energy efficiency and sustainable energy, but others have been slapped down by Government inspectors when they have tried to do exactly the same thing. For example, Reading was allowed to specify thermal performance requirements that were at least 12 per cent. higher than those required by building regulations. Cambridge, on the other hand, was made to water down its planning policy, which required large developers to provide evidence of how they had minimised energy consumption, maximised energy efficiency and considered the feasibility of using combined heat and power systems, even though that is surely exactly what we should be asking of developers in the face of the threat of global warming. However, the Government inspector said the policy was
	unreasonable to the extent that it imposes more onerous requirement than the building Regulations.
	Cambridge is set to increase its housing stock by 40 per cent. in the next 15 years. What impact has the inspector's decision had on carbon dioxide emissions in that city?
	Similarly, in its core strategy and rural issues plan, Bedford borough council wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by 10 per cent. more than the amount set out in building regulations for certain developments. The Government office for the east of England ruled that out on the grounds that the current planning system
	does not permit the setting of energy efficiency standards.
	At present, there is inconsistency and incoherence, resulting in inertia. We need clarity and positive encouragement to meet the highest feasible environmental standards. That is what the amendment is about.
	Although clause 81 deals with targets in local area agreements, the only way that I can envisage targets on energy efficiency and low-carbon energy sources being met is through planning policy, and through the development plan process in particular.

Bob Neill: Yes, I am grateful for the history lesson and some of us learn from history, which is why many Conservatives argue that the business rate should be returned to local authorities. That was my view and it always has been.

Bob Neill: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, and I am now led to conclude that I was right to adopt my old career master's advice to become a lawyer, rather than a history professor. However, in the light of a changed set of circumstances, it is my and many others' view that the business rate can now be returned to local authoritiesalong with the safeguards that can sensibly be put in placein order to avoid the abuse that my right hon. Friend refers to, and which I witnessed as a London borough councillor at that time.
	The targets issue is important, because micro-management through targets undermines local government's degree of discretion. I take France as an example because it is the European country that I know best. Not only are major towns there able to raise much more of their revenue locally, but they are much freer from interference by central Government in how they deliver services. I accept the need for equity on a national basis, but often that is effectively traded off against the greater ability to choose local solutions to meet local problems and local issues. Not enough attention is paid to that.
	The police is a particularly good example, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority, and when I talk to police officers of all ranks in my constituency and elsewhere in Greater London, when I talk to our partners in the crime and disorder reduction partnership locally, and when I talk to people in our police and community consultative groups, it is a recurrent theme that we have far too many centrally imposed targets. Very often these are targets for crimes, for example, which are not the top priority in our local borough, but they have to be fitted into a national template. That diverts attention from dealing with local policing issues. The same applies in a number of other areas.
	A reduction in targets, as we propose in our amendments, seems not only to be right philosophically, but to go with the grain of the evidence on the ground. That is why in our amendment No. 180, which deals with locally determined improvement targets, we seek to give greater flexibility to make changes and amendments to those targets to reflect the changing situation on the ground.
	On local area agreements, I am grateful to the Ministers for having taken on board a number of points that were raised in Committee. I hope, and I reinforce as strongly as I can the message of my hon. Friend, that they will look again at the issue of probation trusts. All of us who have been involved in local government consider that important. In Bromley, as the London assembly and Metropolitan Police Authority member, I serve on the local crime and disorder reduction partnership, of which the probation service is a part. We are anxious to have the ability to involve the probation service much more widely in the overall local area agreements. I am glad to see that the Minister for Local Government seems to respond with some sympathy to that remark. That would build on the best practice in a number of places.
	The same applies to the voluntary sector. Our umbrella voluntary sector organisation, Community Links Bromley, is a valuable part of our local strategic partnership. I should like to make more progress in finding ways in which it can be linked into the local area agreements. It contributes a great deal and where there is good working, we ought to be able to encourage that and facilitate it.
	A practical and sensible set of issues is raised by the Local Government Information Unit in the briefing that a number of Members will have seen. Not only should there be a statutory obligation to co-operate, but we should be able to deliver that in practice. Fortunately, in my borough, people co-operate willingly and well, but the experience of many of us shows that in London and elsewhere the level of co-operation is patchy.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend raises a hugely important point. Although we have not yet reached the degree of crisis that exists in Enfield, the risk applies right across London boroughs, particularly those in outer London, where I regret to say that the health economy is strained and also, for reasons that we have discussed in the Chamber, the financial settlements to local government have been hugely constrained, so any withdrawal puts the whole of service provision into considerable jeopardy. We need to consider that.
	It is interesting that we have some evidence of the extent to which the duty to co-operate works in practice from the audit carried out by the Audit Commission of crime and disorder reduction partnerships. In its 2002 report, its last work on the subject, the Audit Commission noted that
	co-operation across the country was variable from probation services, health and fire services, though all of these are covered by a statutory duty to co-operate.
	That did not always work on the ground. In the past, I have found that one or two of those services in my locality were not co-operating to the degree that we all wished. We were able to fix it, but it would be better if we had more tools to ensure that delivery.
	It is also interesting to see a Home Office document, Making Partnerships Work, which again highlighted concerns at the CDRP level at failure to achieve co-operation in practice on multi-agency agreements, even though those agreements had been made through the statutory partnerships. That comes close to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). Clear areas of concern are flagged up by such empirical evidence as we have.
	It is against that background that I hope that Ministers will consider sympathetically two suggestions by the Local Government Information Unit. First, the Bill should specify a minimum standard of 12 weeks for responding to consultation. That would apply the Cabinet Office guidelines to those partnerships. A partner that did not respond within those periods could be considered to have breached the duty to co-operate. That would give the provisions some teethsomething to pull people together and get them round the table.
	Secondly, the Bill should identify a performance improvement process that could be triggered when there is a breakdown. We do not want to watch a train crash in slow motionwe want a practical means of taking matters forward. The Audit Commission will co-ordinate inspection in localities across its four inspectorate areas, so it would not be too difficult for it to co-ordinate information on breaches of duty to co-operate, which could be fed to the relevant inspectorate of the partner organisation. That would have the advantage of giving an incentive to partner organisations to co-operate, because if its own inspectorate was aware of failures on its part, that could be reflected in its performance assessment.
	Those are two straightforward, practical and not in the least bit costly things that could be done to improve the working of local area agreements and other partnerships. I hope that Ministers will consider them sympathetically.
	The broad issues raised in this part of the Bill are very significant, but they have been well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I hope that the practical points that I have raised flesh out his principal argument.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly, because there is a lot of business to transact. First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his powerful and compelling speech. I am pleased to be one of those who signed his amendment and hope that the Government will recognise the strength of his argument.
	I wish to speak to my amendment No. 248 to clause 42, which, in essence, would insert a requirement to consult trade unions in drawing up local area agreements. I should perhaps declare an interest. I am a former employee of Unison and in receipt of a Unison occupational pension, and the union principally affected by my amendment would be Unison.
	The amendment is about modernising staff consultation arrangements to keep pace with changes to public services. The Government propose the extension and formalisation of local area agreements, which do indeed have the potential to become powerful tools for transforming local services and are a welcome step towards a more joined-up approach. However, the change from single to multi-agency planning means that current arrangements for consultation of the work force will become outdated. The existing arrangements giving a voice to employees are based on the Employment Relations Act 1999, which introduced statutory trade union recognition, and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004the ICE regulations which followed the private Member's Bill that I introduced after the Vauxhall closure in Luton, and which called for consultation and information rights. I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised the value of that suggestion, although at the time they were unhappy about it and did not wish to support my Bill.
	All the social partners, including the TUC and the CBI, signed up to the ICE regulations, recognising that consulting the work force was vital in order to achieve high-performance workplaces. However, both pieces of legislation apply only at the level of the individual employer. A consequence of introducing planning using local area agreements is that by the time consultation occurs at individual employer level, key decisions will already have been taken and staff will be faced with a fait accompli. Their contribution to the process will be hollow and meaningless.
	To maintain the current level of consultation in practice, it is essential that the Bill require that recognised trade unionsthe voice of the work forcebe consulted when a local area agreement is being formulated. It already requires that local authorities consult partner authorities and
	such other persons as appear to be appropriate.
	However, that is inadequate, as trade unions are clearly not partner authorities, and it is possible that some councilsno doubt particularly Conservative councilswill not deem the work force appropriate to consult, especially if their plans are controversial, and will not consult trade unions unless they are compelled by law to do so. Nor is it sufficient for the matter to be covered in statutory guidance, which could be revoked or altered if another party came to power. The provision should be on the face of the Bill.
	The amendment would require recognised trade unions to be consulted as of right, and would maintain the good practice already in place. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to accept it and include it in the Bill.

Mike Hancock: I shall give way later, if time permits. Others wish to speak and I want to deal with the amendments.
	I wholeheartedly support the thrust of amendment No. 255. It is nonsense not to include social landlords in the consultation in local area agreements. Without them, many of the plans are pointless. There is not an area in the country that does not perceive the benefits of close involvement with social landlords, of working with them and including them. Registered social landlords should be part of the family that plans the future of our country. I hope that the Government will recognise the essential part that they play.
	I understand, as did the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) when he presented the amendment, that the Government have a get-out clause, and could say, They're not an authority, as such. However, in most areas, registered social landlords constitute the housing authority and will deliver the sort of houses that the Chancellorthe future leader of the Labour party and future Prime Ministeradvocates now. Without their playing an active part in the planning process, we will lose out considerably. I hope that the Minister for Local Government sees merit in that argument. If the amendment were pushed to a Division, I would support it.
	Again, I support the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who tabled amendment No. 253. He talked a lot of sense about the way in which the planning system is in denial. One authority is saying one thing and another authority is saying another, and the planning inspectorate comes up with bizarre contradictions of policy and no clear thrust about how it should operate. I am unclear whether there is any mechanism to give the planning inspectorate some sort of direction on such issues. How can their decisions be so contrary, as they are, when in some instances neighbouring local authorities with very similar applications can end up being diametrically opposed to each other? It is a bizarre situation that needs to be tackled. I, for one, will be very disappointed if that amendment is not pressed to a vote.
	I now come to the key debates about the main provision in the groupnew clause 29. I have always been sceptical and reluctant to accept that targets are likely to enhance the relationship between central Government and local authorities. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was right to suggest that there was an element of distrust built into these targets, and that Governments of all persuasions were not prepared to give local authorities the necessary trust. I am at a loss to know whether Ministers seriously understand the cost to some local authorities of having to carry out the work necessary to meet those targetsparticularly the cost of the central internal workings requiredfor authorities to deliver. It is not untrue to say that some local authorities have had to reduce services in one area in order to pay the costs of producing the sort of data that Governments require them to produce to satisfy their targets. That is bizarre, to say the least, and the problem needs to be recognised.
	Every time we set a target, a price is associated not just with delivering the target itself, but with having to prepare the data for the target to be properly assessed. How many targets are understood by the public? Could the Minister enlighten us about what his Department received in the way of public feedback on the targets set for local authorities and the costs to those authoritiesultimately, to the public themselvesin meeting them? What is the benefit to the individual when these targets are met in any one local authority, and what are the disadvantages? There is no clarity there at all.
	If we must have a system of target setting, I believe that the Government must be far more transparent about how they arrive at the initial stages. As I said in my earlier intervention, they should clearly indicate to local authorities what the prizein the sense of added power and added resourcefor meeting the target will be. My knowledge of local authorities leads me to believe that even if the target is met, few additional resources will ever come along. There are plenty more responsibilities directed at authorities, but few of the necessary resources are ever made availableand if they are, they apply for a very limited period, after which the authority is expected to continue to pick up the tab. Targets are fine, but they have to be clearly recognised as delivering something worthwhile to the community. Far too many targets that have been, and continue to be, directed at local authorities have no clear purpose at all, least of all to the people who are supposed to benefit from them.

John Gummer: Is it not only in ignorance of the way in which housing is built that the Minister puts forward his view? Any house builder decides on what will be done in a particular area, usually within one local authority. It is perfectly easy for that builder to build to the higher standard that the hon. Gentleman is advocating.

David Anderson: I support the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). The whole agenda is about the modernisation of public services, and it concentrates on structures. The truth, however, is that people, not structures, make changes. Whatever we decide in the next few days, we will be reliant on ordinary working people to implement the changes and make them work for the people who send us here. We hear regularly from the Government the mantra, What matters is what works. It will not work if the work force is not consulted and does not have ownership of what is going on. If we ignore the work force, it will not support what we try to do.
	We are looking for clarity in the Bill. It should say explicitly that recognised trade unions should be consultednot, as it currently says,
	such other persons as appear...to be appropriate.
	Who will decide who appears to be appropriate? Will it be the local councor the local trust? If it is written into the Bill, there will be no ambiguity, and the people who deliver the service will be involved at all stages.
	A consulted work force is a happy work force, even when faced with change. I represented social services in Newcastle long after John Lewis was no longer paying rates there. For 15 years, from 1990, I saw massive changes. Social workers moved from local government into the health service and home care workers competed with private firms that went into people's houses at different times of day, with different people working there. Residential and day care services changed drastically. Yes, we tried to oppose the changes, but ultimately we had to work with them. Regular consultation and discussion, involving the work force and those who were being cared for, were key to that.
	I make a plea to the Minister to insert into clause 82 words that would mean that recognised trade unions will be consulted at every level.

John Gummer: I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I had not intended to speak until I heard the intervention of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), because he raised an important issue. I declare an interest as I chair a company that does some advisory work in the building industry. I therefore know a little about the building industry, and I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman with whom I normally agree.
	The fact is that, last year, nearly half the houses built in Britain did not meet the building standards. We have a system that does not deliver even the pathetic standards that we currently have. The reason for that is that they are input, not output, standards. We must do something about that rapidly. It would be different if the Minister said to us Please do not do this. We really are going to raise standards. Rather than introducing prescriptive building regulations that will never work but will merely pile Ossa on Pelion and produce an impossible system, we will set output standards. That will mean that new houses must have a thermal efficiency of  x, and we are determined that the standard will rise in five years' time. If we knew that the Government would do that, we could take the action that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I do not believe that the Government will do it, so I want progressive local government to force it out of them.
	The comparator is the United States of America. My praise for the USA is not always unalloyed, but it has got one thing right: its states have been forcing the federal Government into a more sensible position on climate change by taking steps themselves. That contrasts with the autocratic, centralising Government that we have in Britain today. Here, every power is brought up to the centre, often not for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)with whom, surprisingly, I often agree, so I hope he will not mind my saying that.
	I made the point about Newcastle because I believe that the business rate ought to return to local authorities, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman why the change took place. It was because of a mechanism that enabled local authorities to precept on the taxpayer. They did that in many areas, and as a result the people who paid the bills increasingly moved out of our great northern cities. It was the change that took place in the hon. Gentleman's partyand I give all credit to his partythat provided an opportunity for the improved relationship between the centre and local authorities that exists today. In that sense we want to empower local authorities, and one way of empowering them is to make them proud of the standards that they set.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that the construction industry could not manage that. The industry gives that same excuse in every circumstance: it is always, We cannot do this and We cannot do that. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Kyoto the car manufacturing industry said that if we passed the protocol it would not be able to produce the vehicles that would fulfil its part of the bargain. Within six months, every car manufacturer in the United States had those vehicles on the market. I believe that the same is true of the construction industry. If it becomes clear that there is a movement throughout progressive local authorities, of all political parties, to raise the standards expected of buildings, the industry will say to the Government, Please do not leave this to the local authorities; you must set the standards. Then, at long last, we shall see proper pressure being exerted on Government.

John Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman would have my entire support were it not for my belief that if we allow that cosy deal, not the industry but the Government will let people down. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not say that, but in 10 years of this Government there have been only a few pathetic improvements in the building regulations. Part L is a disgrace.  [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary will not catch me out on part L. Let me point out that the Government initiated consultation on the new regulations for conservatories and extensions, received universal support for a raising of standards, and then not only refused to raise them but had the audacity to tell the public that they never meant to do so. So why the blazes did they initiate the consultation?
	I heard the Under-Secretary's colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), utter on the radio what I must describe as the nearest thing to a terminological inexactitude that I have ever heard from a Minister. She said that they had never intended it, yet there it was in a consultation documentation that suggested that the standards should be raised. I trust the right hon. Gentleman. If he told me it, I would have no doubt that we were moving in that direction. However, we have had 10 years of failure in doing what we need to do if we are to have any chance of meeting the climate change obligation. That is why I find the Government so difficult they have all the right words but they do not actually do anything.

Neil Turner: My hon. Friend anticipates the point I am about to make. As a result of the last local elections, 327 out of the 645 Greater Manchester councillors are Labour, 131 or 20 per cent. are Conservative and 162 or 25 per cent. are Liberal Democrats. Yet the Greater Manchester PTA is about to be taken over by the Liberal Democrats, even though they account for only 25 per cent. of councillors. That cannot be right. It will seriously undermine the ability of Greater Manchester PTA to work with the 10 districts to produce passenger transport arrangements that reflect not only the will of the councils, but the will of those who voted in May.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine whether, when the Bill moves on to the House of Lords, he might amend it so that the Liberals cannot subvert the democratic will of the people of Greater Manchester in this way and so that we can have the progress that was agreed between the other two major parties in Greater Manchester in respect of what are essential transport measures. They should be included in our local area agreements so that we can have our busways, tramways and congestion charges, for which the vast majority of the people of Greater Manchester have voted. If we do not have them, the point of the elections will be lost.
	At some point in the future we should also look into proportionality. I favour there being a strict basis for that so that one in three councillors must be an opposition member even if one party has as much as 60, 70 or 80 per cent. of councillors. One third of representation should come from the opposition party, rather than the smaller proportion that it currently has. Perhaps we should take an overall look at proportionality.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into this issue closely and make sure that we are not put into the position that we appear to be about to be put into even though five of the Greater Manchester councils are Labour controlled, one is Conservative and only two are under Liberal Democrat control.

Gregory Barker: I apologise for not having been present for the opening of the debate.
	I wish to speak briefly about my support for amendment No. 253, tabled by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) and of which I am a sponsor. I am keen to do so because I endeavoured to introduce a similar measure last year when a private Member's Bill on climate change was in Committee. Unfortunately, the Government voted it down and continue to set their face against empowering local communities to go further and faster than central Government have so far been prepared to allow them in requiring higher eco-standards in our homes.
	I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that it would be far better if we were to concern ourselves with outcomes rather than standards that will never be enforced. However, in the absence of a wholesale review of the systemit is unlikely that we shall get one under this Governmentif we are to make standards the benchmark by which we operate, we must empower local communities to make the decisions that are right for their new developments and give local people a sense of shared responsibility for eco-friendly developments in their communities.
	All too often people ask, Why are the Government not doing more on climate change to put the Prime Minister's fine words into action where I live? Why do we struggle to see any difference in the types of development that we see springing up? We see it on the television and we hear politicians talking about it at Westminster, but when we try to do something locally, it just does not happen.
	This small, innocuous amendment would allow progressive councils of all coloursI readily accept that not just Conservative councils but others could take advantage of this measureto do something outstanding. They want to set a new benchmark for eco-friendly homes, to put microgeneration into practice in their community and to encourage greater energy efficiency. They do not want to be lectured by the House Builders Federation or their lackeys.
	We should listen to local people and empower local communities to do something about climate change.

Alison Seabeck: I know that my hon. Friend is in full flow, so I thank him for giving way. He mentioned the addition of partner authorities. Given the title of part 5Co-operation of English authorities with local partners, etcdoes he accept that it is incumbent on local authorities to work with their existing partners? Plymouth city council, which is now Conservative led, has said that, within two weeks and without consulting local police, it will impose a curfew on all 16-year-olds.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and rings a bell of warning about what might be going on in the local authorities of which the Conservatives strained to gain control. She made her point effectively. I shall watch with interest to see how the 16 and 17-year-olds vote in two years' time. I can imagine that the measure will be a good way of increasing youth turnout. I can guess which way those young people will voteand it will not be for the party of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
	I was saying that the bodies will be subject to the duty to co-operate in determining targets in local area agreements. I fear that those are dry-sounding words, but that measure, along with clause 108, which covers the duty to involve, consult and inform, changes the statutory framework within which local government operates. That is a significant development. The consultation will have regard to local area agreements. Given that a local authority prepares not just an LAA but a sustainable community strategy, there is a relationship between the Bill that we are discussing and the Sustainable Communities Bill, which is a private Member's Bill that is in Committee at the moment.
	Agreements and strategies will be crucial to capture the vision and agreed priorities in local areas, but it is the engagement and negotiation between local partners, and the way in which they put strategies and agreed targets at the heart of their business, that will make them a success. That is a rather long way of saying, You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drinkthe proof of the pudding, in other words.  [ Laughter. ] That is enough metaphors. I will stick to common sense ones in future, as the Committee asked.
	The duty to co-operate to determine local improvement targets will ensure that all the key partners in an area take those obligations seriously. It is therefore important that the list is comprehensive in naming the main public sector bodies that deliver or co-ordinate local services. Amendments Nos. 20 to 28 and 55 reflect a number of commitments that I made in Committee to add further bodies to the list. They also deal with other bodies, which I shall briefly discuss.
	Amendments Nos. 20, 23 and 28 will add NHS trusts and foundation trusts to the list. In Committee, we enjoyed a good discussion on the merits of including those bodies in the duty to co-operate, and I made a commitment to do so through Government amendments. I made it clear, however, that by including them we did not wish to place on them, or the responsible local authorities, any unnecessary burdens, and I am satisfied that the amendments will not do so, but will instead ensure that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are involved in negotiations only where they operate hospitals, establishments or other facilities in the area covered by the LAAwhat we refer to as the Great Ormond Street problem.
	A further commitment that I made in Committee was to add Transport for London to the list of partner authorities, and that will be the effect of amendments Nos. 22 and 27. I made it clear that I consider thatthe duties of co-operation most sensibly rest on the Greater London authority's functional bodiesthe Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the London Development Agency and Transport for Londonrather than on the authority itself, which of course has its own accountability function.

Kelvin Hopkins: Whatever is done, should we not recognise that we are long way behind those on the continent of Europe in terms of the energy efficiency of homes in particular? Germany has 100 times more homes with solar heating panels on the roof than the UK has. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Government must take a more forceful approach?

Phil Woolas: The proposition is that we are along way behind our partners in Europe. I accept that. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is significantly changing that, and we have started to discuss it.
	Amendment No. 253 is, in principle, supported by the Government. We too feel that energy standards and microgeneration for new buildings are key to the long-term environmental development of our communities. That is why in the last Parliament we introduced the Bill that became the Energy Act 2004. We have also stated that the Government intend to legislate to set out clearly the role of local planning authorities in improving energy efficiency and tackling climate change. That will allow us to make legislative proposals in the light of the responses to the consultation on the planning policy statement and within the wider context of the measures that we will set out in the planning White Paper on continuing our reforms to the planning process. That will be done shortly. We are also committed to changing from the community strategies that the Local GovernmentAct 2000 obliges local authorities to produce to the sustainable community strategies required by the Sustainable Communities Billa private Member's Bill currently in Committee.
	Those three measures all reflect the growing importance of sustainable development issues and emphasise the leading role that local communities have in managing their environment. I hear the words of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal about time, but the Government are making their proposals. We do not believe that it is right to bolt such measures on to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. We believe that our proposals, when hon. Members have seen them in the round, will be warmly welcomedespecially in the beautiful constituency of Gower, represented by my hon. Friend who made such a compelling case.

Phil Woolas: Let me finish my point before Opposition Whips start heckling, as they usually do when a point is made that they do not like. The commencement date for the Bill is next April. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle does not know what the commencement date will be for the measures introduced under planning legislation. He misses the point of the code for sustainable homes, which is perhaps not the most advanced in Europe but which the environmental lobby recognises is one of the best. It is right that when we legislate we do so in the round. It is also contradictory for him to call for further and proper consultation and the involvement of communities, only to say that we should act today. Perhaps we should consult on what we propose; that is the spirit of the Sustainable Communities Bill, which he supported.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, but on this occasion he has clearly not listened to my response on the amendment. It is a bit unfair to say that the Government are dragging their feet and not taking the opportunity before them, given that I have clearly outlined the measures that we propose to take, which include a commitment to legislation, as I have said. He is right that we are asking the House to resist the amendment if it is pushed to a Division, not because we disagree with its objective but because we want to get the measures right, using the proper processes. I do not think that he addressed the pointI apologise if he didthat planning policy and planning law is the other side of the coin.
	Let me bring my remarks to a conclusion, because there are other amendments to discuss, and we have provided a generous amount of time to discuss the amendments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) mentioned Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and the commitment to balance and proportionalityprinciples that are sometimes found on leaflets, but sometimes not practised. I know that Liberal Democrat Members will listen carefully to this next point: my hon. Friend asked me to look into the Liberal Democrats' subversion of the democratic will of the people of Greater Manchester. I have devoted my political life to addressing that issue, so I certainly undertake to do as he says.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North and for Blaydon asked about trade unions. They said that employees were key to the change, and they are. Let me make it perfectly clear that clause 108, which is the second pillar of the change to the statutory framework, applies to trade unions. We not only welcome employee involvement and consultation; we believe that it is essential to improve services. Our attitude is that if we want to improve services, it is best to ask the people who deliver them; that is a better way of doing things. So, again, the intention behind the amendment is covered.
	I think that I have dealt with all the specific issues that were raised. We have other groups of amendments and new clauses to consider, so I ask the House to resist new clause 29 and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gower to consider withdrawing his amendment.

Tom Brake: There is much that we can welcome in what the Minister said, particularly the extension of the list of bodies to include NHS trusts and foundation truststhey were serious omissions from the original Billand the Arts Council, museums, libraries and archives. However, given that such organisations were missed, I wonder whether in months to come we might find others that should have been included.
	We had a passionate debate on amendment No. 253 and a number of Members made very strong cases, particularly the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). If he presses the amendment to a vote, he will receive our support and he will also receive it if it appears in another place. I think that the Minister said that the Government are already working on this issueor that the Chancellor is, at least, in the form of eco homes. I remind the Minister that so far, the Chancellor has issued a press release, so there is still quite a lot of work to be done.  [Interruption.] It was doubtless an important press releasebut just a press release.
	New clause 30 would establish within a year a representative body from local and central Government, which is surely achievable, even given the difficulties experienced in moving matters forward apace in this place. The Minister said that there are better ways of achieving a reduction in regulation than new clause 29, but he did not outline what they were. I certainly did not get from him today the sense of urgency that we, local councils and councillors feel about the need quickly to reduce the regulatory burden. On that basis, we will press new clause 29 to a vote.

Amendment proposed: No. 253, page 56, line 13, after 'area', insert
	', including targets relating to energy efficiency standards and microgeneration, as defined by section 82 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) in buildings in new developments,'. [Mr. Caton.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 247.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 76, page 121, line 23, at end insert 'and to patients and the public'.
	Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34
	Amendment No. 77, page 122, line 10, clause 173, at end insert
	'and who does not commission or provide local care services'.
	Government amendments Nos. 35 and 36
	Amendment No. 78, page 123, line 4, clause 175, leave out 'view' and insert 'inspect'.
	Amendment No. 131, page 123, line 8, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
	Government amendment No. 37
	Amendment No. 132, page 123, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
	Government amendment Nos. 38 and 39
	Amendment No.79, page 124, line 5, clause 176, leave out 'social'.
	Government amendment Nos. 40 to 54
	Amendment No. 80, page 126, line 32, leave out clause 179.
	Amendment No. 81, page 127, line 24, leave out clause 180.
	Amendment No. 82, page 129, line 5, clause 182, leave out 'significant'.
	Amendment No. 83, page 129, line 7, leave out 'significant'.
	Amendment No. 84, page 129, leave out lines 9 to 14.
	Amendment No. 249, page 129, line 14, at end insert ', or
	(c) the means by which the users of those services can scrutinise the provision of those services.'.
	Amendment No. 85, page 129, leave out lines 15 to 20.
	Amendment No. 75, page 129, line 29, at end insert
	'(1GA) A relevant English body in proposing a significant change in services delivered in a way likely to affect patients' physical access or transport to a service must consult with
	(a) the local involvement network,
	(b) relevant patient groups, and
	(c) the appropriate transport authority,
	and report in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe prior to implementing those changes on the results of such consultation.
	(1GB) For the purposes of subsection (1GA), a change in services is significant if implementation of the change would have a substantial impact on
	(a) the manner in which services are delivered to users of those services, or
	(b) the range of health services available to those users.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must deal with the question that I am putting to the House.

Phil Woolas: [Interruption.]Apologies, I could not hear what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Government amendment No. 32 relates to local involvement in health networksLINKswhich were debated in full in Committee.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy, as ever.
	I understand the way in which the funds will reach local authoritiesI see the logic behind thatbut perhaps the Minister could help a constituent of mine, who feels that if the purpose of LINKs is effectively to scrutinise social services and their involvement, that will be difficult if social services departments are brought into the organisation and the setting up of the LINKs. What safeguards will be provided to ensure that that process is genuinely arm's length, and LINKs have enough robustness and capacity to ensure their independence in such circumstances?

Phil Woolas: I can, and I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. The Bill does the opposite; it strengthens the obligation. In developing these LINK bodies, and in the wider context of bringing together local authorities and other agencies, we are trying to provide a much stronger interface between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector. In committee, I described it as the interface between participative democracy and representative democracy. This is why I earlier described the process as a marathon, not a sprint. However, the general direction of travel is that which my hon. Friend desires.
	Amendment No. 32 would add to the activities that it is proposed LINKs will be able to undertake. It will enable LINKs to monitor and review the commissioning and provision of local care services. In Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) proposed that LINKs should have a role in monitoring services, much as patient forums did before. It was suggested that the role of monitoring was proactive. I agree. We have always thought that LINKs should be proactive in seeking the views of people, promoting their involvement and monitoring the commissioning and provision of services. The amendment is intended to clarify that role. LINKs will be able to monitor the range and quality of care services using the intelligence that they have gathered as well as their power to enter and view services. They will be ideally placed to make reports and recommendations to those responsible for care services.
	Amendment No. 33 alters the power given to the Secretary of State in clause 172(3), so that the Secretary of State has the power only to add to the activities of a LINK and not to remove or vary those activities. I hope that Opposition and Government Members will welcome the announcement. That was one of our early champagne moments; I have not forgotten my obligation[ Interruption]when we receive Royal Assent. As I said in Committee, the Department of Health will be asked to contribute.
	The regulation-making power was originally included to allow adjustments to be made to the role of LINKs where necessary to reflect future changes in the nature of health and social care. We felt that it was important to have this flexibility as we know that patient forums have suffered from being too rigidly prescribed in primary legislation. That has made them, on occasion, unable to adapt to changing circumstances around them. Again, this issue was raised in Committee. The concern was that the power could be used to restrict the role of LINKs at some future date. That was far from our intention; the clause was intended to safeguard the role of LINKs for the future while making them able to adapt.
	Further, it was intended that the regulation-making power would be subject to the affirmative procedure to reassure Parliament that it would not be used without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In other words, we would need to get the endorsement of the House to make such a change. As this has proved to be of concern to Members, we have reconsidered the clause. We are eager to demonstrate our commitment to LINKs and we do not feel that it would be necessary or desirable to remove any of the functions of the LINKs as they are currently drafted. Therefore, we are happy to reassure hon. Members by removing the power to vary and omit these activities. The power to add to the activities of LINKs has been retained to ensure that their roles can be adapted in the future.
	Amendments Nos. 34 to 54 cover two distinct, but related, areas; Nos. 34 to 41, 49 and 54 relate to what can constitute a LINK. Nos. 42 to 48 and 50 to 53 concern the annual reports. In Committee, concern was expressed that the existing clause 173(2)(b), which states that a LINK could be
	any other means put in place under the arrangement for the carrying on in A's area of activities so specified for that area
	could allow a LINK to be an entirely virtual entity. When I first heard of that point I was amused by it, but on considering it I thought that an issue had been raised in respect of this modern world. The amendment addresses that.
	The clause as drafted would allow for a virtual LINK, but it is of course not our intention that that is how their activities would be carried out. The Bill was drafted in this way to allow some flexibility and to provide a fall-back position in the unlikely scenario that there was no one in an area who wantedto participate in a LINK. It allows a local authorityto contract with a host organisation and for the host to provide opportunitiesor the means for peopleto carry out the LINK activities. In light of the concerns that were expressed about the virtual entity possibility and given that it is not our intention that LINKs should take this form, I introduce amendment No. 34 which removes the possibility of there being any other means to establish a LINK. Therefore, they will be populated by people, which is of course what everybody wantsreal people, as opposed to virtual people.
	This proposed change has led to some significant redrafting of associated clauses; as ever, I am grateful to officials and parliamentary counsel for their diligent work. Amendments Nos. 35 to 41, 49 and 54 are all consequential amendments needed to reflect the change to clause 173(2). They remove references to any other means.
	The second group of amendments relates to LINKs annual reports. Provisions in clause 177 to do with LINKs reports have also been amended. Amendment No. 44 in particular adjusts the requirement for arrangements to make provision in respect of annual reports. The responsibility for writing the report will usually rest with the LINK. However, if the LINK does not produce that reportfor instance because it has been in place for only a part of the yearit will be the host's responsibility to produce the report for any missing period. If a host has not been successful in establishing a LINK, the host will report on any activities that have been undertaken for the purpose of ensuring that there are means by which the LINK activities are carried out. It will also report on what sums it has spent in its efforts to establish a LINK.
	Although the amendments might appear to take some working through, many of them are consequential amendments that aim to address the concerns expressed by Committee members that a LINK could take an entirely virtual form. They also seek to clarify who should be responsible for the annual report. That is an important point. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) raised the issue about the timing and scheduling of the establishment of LINKs and the overlap with the existing arrangements. I hope that Members will be reassured by our proposed changes and what I have said about them.

John Baron: I welcome some of the Minister's amendments; it is clear that the Government have, to a certain extent at least, listened in Committee, particularly in respect of amendments Nos. 32 to 34. However, it should be said that the measures in part 13 of the Bill would bring about a radical change in the NHS. They would fundamentally alter the structure of public and patient involvement in health, notably by scrapping patient forums. Therefore, it is unfortunate that these measures have been included at the fag-end of a Bill dealing with local governmenta Bill that does not even have the word patient in the title. Some might conclude that that shows the low priority that patient and public involvement has been given under this Government.
	Many would consider this yet another pointless reorganisation. Ministers abolished community health councils in the face of widespread opposition and replaced them with a myriad of costly, fragmentary bodies. Now, only four years after setting up patient forums, the Government are abolishing their own reforms at a cost of about 120 million to the taxpayer. Those figures have been audited. Hard-working volunteers up and down the country are appalled that yet another reorganisation is on the cards, believing it to represent a weakening of the patient's voice and public scrutiny. We know that they have told the Government as much, but Ministers have still not published the submissions from forums to the document, A stronger local voice.
	My remarks on the Bill, which reflect the amendments tabled, will focus on a number of key concerns. My first concern is with regard to the role of LINKs as defined in clause 1(7)(2). The Government have introduced several amendments in respect of points that we raised in Committee. As I said, I welcome those, but we believe that an opportunity has been missed to make the Bill even better. Government amendment No. 32 would add the words:
	enabling people to monitor, and review, the commissioning and provision of local care services
	to the list of local activities. Before that, according to the Government, LINKs would have been nothing more than a conduit for people expressing their views. As we argued in Committee, LINKs should be about much more than that, and I am pleased that the Government agree.
	It was always a role of patient forums to monitor services, and that should be allowed to continue. The amendment allows the public to have a proactive role in reviewing and, ultimately, improving the quality of services. That is to be welcomed. Without that function, the right to enter and view premises would be simply another means to gather views, and not a remit to inspect and critically assess health and social services.
	There is one further activity that needs to be included in the Bill, and that is what we hope to achieve with amendment No. 76. It would require LINKs to report back to local people as well as to other bodies, such as primary care trusts. The Government's view is that LINKs are primarily a conduit for local people to express their views about the commissioning and provision of services. We believe that the flow of information needs to be two-way. That is especially important if Government amendment No. 32 is passed, as it is likely to be. LINKs will then have a proactive role in monitoring and finding out about services. The findings should be brought to the attention of local people. They need to hear back about how they are being represented, while the sharing of information generally facilitates patient choice and promotes accountability in the broadest sense. I therefore invite the Minister to accept our amendment.
	Government amendment No. 33 is a step in the right direction. It is another concession in response to the point that we raised in Committee, in that denies the Secretary of State the power to restrict the activities of LINKs. Our fear was that the definition of patient and public involvement included in the Bill could be rewritten entirely by the Secretary of State without having to return to the Floor of the House. It would certainly make a mockery of our careful consideration of the Bill if the House were to approve this part in its current form.
	My second concern is about the composition of LINKs, as covered by clause 173. This is one of the vaguest parts of the Bill, and has been the cause of confusion among patient volunteers about future arrangements. Government amendment No. 34 helps because it removes the possibility of a LINK, as the Minister has already highlighted, being a purely virtual arrangementthat is, one without individuals or organisations being directly involved. Clearly, that would be unacceptable. I know that the amendment has been tabled following probing by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in Committee, and I welcome it.
	The Government amendment, however, still leaves too many questions unanswered, in particular about the rules for membership and the arrangements for governance of the LINK. The Government's aspiration is clearly to get as many people as possible involved in health and social care by giving them the freedom to drop in and out of patient and user involvement. However, the larger the LINK becomes, the more infrequently some of its members are involved, and the more difficult and unwieldy it becomes for it to decide on programmes of work and undertake a proactive role in monitoring services.
	Therefore, we believe that there needs to be a core group of dedicated members who have training, expenses and support to give leadership, drive and focus to the work of the LINK. Current members of patient forums are good candidates for such a role, but that is not being delivered by the legislation. At the moment, the Bill leaves such matters to chance. There will be some vague arrangement, whereby the host organisation and the LINK will somehow put such arrangements into place. In short, Parliament will vote a large sum of money to set up LINKs without knowing what we are getting in returnand that takes me to my third concern.
	It is still not clear how much influence the host is meant to have over the LINKfor example, in determining the governance arrangementswhich leaves the way open for a possible conflict of interest. Our amendment No. 77 would ensure that the host organisation was not a provider of local services to be monitored by the LINK; otherwise a clear conflict of interest might arise, because the host organisation would on the one hand be providing a service for the local authority, while on the other hand it would be part of an organisation whose responsibility it was to monitor the effectiveness of that servicemy hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made a related point earlier. That would be nonsense, and the conflict of interest problem needs to be addressed. If the Government object to our amendment, it is for the Minister to explain exactly how they intend to require prospective host organisations to demonstrate an ability to manage such a conflict of interest.
	In Government amendments Nos. 42 to 52, the Minister introduces the concept of non-networked activities carried out by the host organisation and requires the host to report on them annually. Exactly what are non-networked activities? It is not clear in the measure. Are they activities relating to the formation of a LINK, and if so, will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box that they are the only activities that host will be able to undertake independently of the LINK? If not, we shall be creating much uncertainty.
	My fourth point is extremely important, and it relates to the right of LINKs to enter and inspect premises. The opinion of current forum members is particularly vexed on that subject; indeed, the Government agreed to include a limited powerto view premisesonly after the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) was ambushed at a meeting of irate volunteers last autumn, at which I was present. Where patient forums have been successfulfor example, in putting the spotlight on cleanliness or the quality of hospital foodthe power to enter and inspect premises has often been key. However, the Bill contains only a watered down version of that powerto enter and view.
	Our amendment would replace the word view with the word inspect, because there is a fundamental difference between the two. In our book, to view means that one is simply collecting information, whereas to inspect suggests something morethat services are being monitored against set guidelines. The reason given in Committee for the Government's opposition to our proposal was:
	LINKs members are not inspectors or regulators as covered by the inspectorate regime. [Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2007; c. 545.]
	A fair comment, one might thinkbut the Government's approach completely misses the point. I ask the Minister to address this point: there is such a thing as lay inspection, influenced by patients, which is what patient forum members around the country have been doing. They are a critical friend rather than a formal regulator; they build up relationships with members of staff and the management, and their visits are more frequent and spontaneous than those of the Healthcare Commission. That approach has worked well, so it is a shame that the Government are blind to the excellent work of patient forum members in that respect.

John Baron: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We probed the Government on that point in Committee, but as yet we have not had a satisfactory answer, although I hope the Minister will put that right today. In fact, I would suggest that the Government are so blind to the benefit of this approach that their own draft regulations subordinate the few inspection rights that LINKs members have to the work of the regulatorfor example, by requiring LINKs to obtain the agreement of the regulator before making a visit and to co-ordinate their work.
	Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 might provide an opportunity to restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to impose limitations on the rights of LINKs to enter and view or inspect premises. However, there is still time for the Minister to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box not to fetter the right of LINKs to make spot checks on premises that they are entitled to enter. It is absolutely right to say that we have not had a satisfactory explanation of why the Government seem so concerned about the ability of LINKs to enter and inspect. I would welcome the Minister's response to that point.
	I now turn to perhaps the most important part of the debate. Conservative amendments Nos. 80 and 81 would save patient forums from abolition. They reflect a number of concerns and observations that we have about the manner in which the Government are proceeding. There are too many questions about LINKs that the Government seem either unwilling or unable to answer. Issues such as the composition of LINKs, the potential conflict of interests and the right to inspect have not been properly addressed. For that reason, we believe that it is unwise to abolish what presently exists, and works increasingly well, and to replace it with a structure about which we have many doubts.
	First, let us not be fooled by the talk of building on forums or turning forums into LINKs. The truth is that forums are being abolished and LINKs are being created from scratch. When community health councils were abolished, many hard-working volunteers were lost to the system. Too little of that expertise made the transfer to patient forums. I fear that the same mistake will bedevil LINKs. Ministers have said that they hope that patient forum members will be included in LINKs. I have heard that many times from the Minister. But such inclusion cannot be guaranteed. It is in the gift of the host organisations. We do not want to lose the body of expertise that has been built up over the last four years.
	Secondly, I remain concerned that funding from the Department of Health might be prevented from reaching the front line of patient and public involvement. The money given to local councils will be targeted, but crucially, it will not be ring-fenced. The expert panel that developed or helped to develop the idea of LINKs did not propose that funding would be handled in that way. Money intended for health could end up being siphoned off by local government, which could be under financial pressure in relation to a whole range of issues. I challenge the Minister to explain, even at this late stage, how that can be guarded against. If the Government are serious about targeting the money, why should it not be ring-fenced?
	Thirdly, although the focus of LINKs is understandably local, the Government have shown a complete lack of leadership on the question of a national voice for patients. Ironically, after years of delay, the patient forums have finally persuaded the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to help them to develop a national organisation, but if patient forums are abolished, it looks as if that national organisation will be abandoned. LINKs would put nothing in its place.
	Finally, questions of accountability have not been answered. It is not clear what sanctions exist if the LINKs are not performing well. Patient forums are ultimately responsible to the commission, which is an independent body. I accept that we do not want to give too many organisations a lever of undue influence over the LINK or the host organisation, but clearly there must be accountability when it comes to the use of public money, and what is done in the name of local people. That accountability is sadly lacking. Patient forum volunteers up and down the country have worked hard, despite some of them being badly served by patchy administrative support and hesitant leadership from the commission. Given our reservations, I would like to test the opinion of the House on amendment No. 80.
	I should say a few words about amendments Nos. 82 to 85, which seek to challenge the inclusion of the word significant as a qualification on the duty to consult. Our fear is that that represents a mechanism by which consultation can be restricted, rather than enhanced. Ministers have said that a threshold is needed to prevent mischievous or vexatious interpretations of the duty and to avoid consultation fatigue on trivial changes. However, I am aware of no specific examplesnone at allof that being a problem under the current arrangements, which, as far as we are concerned, do not include such a qualification.
	Indeed, it is difficult not to be a little sceptical about this measure, because the definition of what is significant is often controversial; it is a very subjective term. Some of the examples given by the Minister in Committee, such as a reduction in the number of beds in a hospital or changes to a GP's opening hours, might well be considered significant by patients, but not by the health service bureaucracy. The last thing we ought to be doing is setting the scene for legal wrangling, when the promise of the document A Stronger Local Voice was to clarify the duty to consult.
	In conclusion, the Government have failed to make the case for LINKs. Too many of our questions remain unanswered. There may be a need to improve patient and public involvement in health by enabling more people to get involved in more flexible ways and to join up health and social care. However, that could and should have been achieved by reforming patients forums and building on their expertise, rather than abolishing them and starting from scratch. Too much taxpayers' money is being wasted, and perhaps more importantly, too much expertise risks being wasted.
	Instead, the Government seek to abolish the system that they put in place only four years ago. They are betraying the hard work and dedication of volunteers, who do not understand what they have done wrong or why they are being got rid of. If the system of patients forums has failed, it is only because Ministers have made mistakes. They should not be allowed to walk away from those mistakes without being called to account in the Division Lobbies of this House.
	We have sought to improve LINKs and make them workable, and I believe that the Government's amendments would, to a certain extent, help to do that. However, key questions still have not been answered about the composition, membership and governance of LINKs, about their rights to enter and inspect premises and about the relationship between them and the host organisations. Crucially, I do not believe that LINKs represent continuity and retention of expertise within patient and public involvement in health. They represent careless reorganisation and uncertaintysomething that the NHS has had far too much of in recent years. For that reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, and with your permission, my colleagues and I will call on the House to vote against the abolition of forums by supporting our amendment No. 80.

Paul Truswell: I shall touch on three issues that hon. Members have already raised. The first is the abolition of patient forums. I am glad that we all resisted the temptation to rehearse the history of community health councils, but I share the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the questionable wisdom of abolishing forums. To repeat a point that the Select Committee on Health spelled out clearly, now that we have abolished CHCs and are moving towards abolishing forums, I am left confused about what local involvement in health networks will be like and how they will operate in practice. I am particularly concerned about that. It was certainly true of CHCs and patient forums that people could see what they were getting. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) about the expertise that was developed by CHCs and passed on to forums. That may be lost if we are not careful to give LINKs the sort of focus that hon. Members have talked about.
	My second point is about the significance of the word significant, a subject that was discussed by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). As I tried to point out in my brief intervention earlier, there are outstanding concerns about whether there will be a great shift in emphasis, as regards both the right to be consulted and the impulsion on health bodies to carry out consultation. Like the hon. Gentleman, I fear that under this part of the Bill some issues for consultation might fall under the radar, either inadvertently or deliberately.
	I crave hon. Members' indulgence while I give a recent example. Wharfedale hospital is not in my constituency, but it serves a great number of my constituents. It has existed for many years, but under the Conservative Government it deteriorated, decayed and lost services. From time to time it was earmarked for closure and we had to fight campaigns against that. Under this Government, it has been rebuilt and it is one of the great achievements that we can point to locally. The new building opened two years ago, but unfortunately instead of it being used to maximum capacity, its progress has been characterised by the gradual withdrawal of services.
	In autumn last year, a 16-bed ward for older people was closed without any consultation. The explanation given by the trust was that it could provide the same level of service to older patients with fewer beds. That may or may not be true, but in the context of the gradual removal of services, and given what local people saw as the diminution of the hospital's functions, that ward closure was an extremely significant issue for them. Back in the autumn, under existing legislation, it was questioned whether there should have been consultation on what local people regarded as a major issue, so I wonder whether use of the word significant in the Bill would allow such issues to drop even further below the radar.
	Finally, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North about amendment No. 249, to which my name is attached. There is a real fear thatand it will be so argued under the Bill as it stands, the simple transfer of services to the private sector will not necessarily trigger a consultation. Let me give a hypothetical example that might become a practical one in due course. I am certainly of the view that independent sector treatment centres, given their very nature, should not be introduced without major public consultation. It might be argued that that is not so, because there is a level transfer of service and no reduction in capacity. However, on looking at the proposals for an ISTC in west Yorkshirethankfully, they were ultimately withdrawnI was very concerned about the implications of their implementation.
	The issue was not the level of patient care and capacitythat would certainly have been therebut the proposed transfer of services from the NHS acute trust in Leeds, which would almost certainly have had a wider impact. Resources would have been transferred out of the trust and there would have been implications for its ability to meet its fixed costs, so that would have been an extremely significant move. Perhaps Members can call to mind other such examples of transferring NHS services to the private sector. I therefore seek an assurance that my amendment is not necessary and that this issue, about which I am very concerned, is dealt with in the Bill.

Philip Dunne: I want to make two brief comments in support of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). The Government have succeeded in upsetting a large body of volunteers through the manner in which they have abolished patients forums and given up the expertise that was so willingly given in the past two years. That has been a great mistake, and the Government should have recognised that and sought to build on the success of what had been established, rather than abolishing it.
	Secondly, I want to support what the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said a moment ago. What is significant in one area might not be in another. Let me give a local example. Last year, Shropshire went through a consultation exercise, set in train by Shropshire County primary care trust, on the future of services in three of our community hospitals, all of which are in my constituency. The saving of 150,000 was sought from Bishops Castle community hospital, which could have led to its closure. It is a small hospital, and in the context of the PCT's revenuesprobably of any PCT's revenues150,000 is a relatively insignificant sum. However, it was hugely significant to the people of Bishop's Castle. Similarly, a saving of 300,000 was sought from Ludlow hospital, which would have resulted in the closure of half its beds and two of its wards. So, what is significant in a national context when drafting legislation, and what is significant in a local context when implementing that legislation, are very different. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, which would delete the word significant, are therefore entirely relevant. If they are accepted, local areas would be obliged to undertake consultation on matters relevant to them. I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendments.

Alison Seabeck: I rise to point out concerns that were drawn to my attention by my local patients forum at a recent meeting. It was a lively, extremely thoughtful meeting, and the forum acknowledged that many good measures are being introduced as part of this change. However, it still has anxieties and it has asked me to voice its concerns directly to the Minister and to seek clarification.
	It needs to be borne in mind that the south-west is an enormous region, taking in Cornwall and Devon and the wider area, as well as Plymouth itself, so it is difficult for local authorities to monitor and review the commissioning of local services and their delivery in the locality. The patients forum has done good work in that area. Recently, for example, Cornwall county council scrutinised the work carried out at Derriford hospital in Plymouth. The patients forum gave evidence, but it is their belief that under the new structures that will no longer be possible because of the definition of the area. Forum members are also extremely concerned that only two of the existing members live in the Plymouth local authority area, and that other existing members of the forum will no longer be able to participate in the LINK, which will be based in and around Plymouth and around Derriford hospital, which, because of its size, meets the needs of a much wider area across the peninsula of the south-west.
	The second issue is how well the patients forum is embedded in the day-to-day running of the hospital. Members of the forum are involved in the infection control committee, the valuing people group, Plymouth health and wellbeing overview and scrutiny panel, as well as the care standards group, the bus users forum and so on. They are proactive and therefore on the ball and able to flag up immediately issues that arise in the hospital or are linked to the hospital. They are worried that the new LINK will not be able to be as proactive and responsive because the new arrangements for access and inspection are thought to be far too formal. I would welcome the Minister's comments.

John Baron: One of the specific questions that I put to the Minister concerned conflict of interest. Under the Bill, a host organisation could provide services yet be part of a body that assesses its effectiveness. How do the Government propose to address that conflict of interest, about which we have heard relatively little?

Phil Woolas: Half an hour ago, the hon. Gentleman voted for an amendment to prevent ring-fencing, yet now he is trying to provide for a ring-fenced budget. My difficulty as Minister for Local Government, as, I suspect, for all my predecessors and successors, is that Members are happy to argue against ring-fencing in general but that we should have it in a particular case. At last year's Local Government Association conference, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that he would abolish all ring-fencingI will believe that when I see it. The money is provided for the local authority. In the round, based on what we know, we believe that it is sufficient. The Government are not ring-fencing the money because we trust local authorities and believe that by not ring-fencing we will achieve better value for taxpayers' money.
	I am in danger of repeating myself about conflicts of interest. Local authorities, like Governments, face the potential for conflict of interest across the piece. If we devolve more power to local councils, that increasesthe chances of a perception of conflict of interest. At the moment, the commission is, in effect, funded by the Government, yet its independence is not questioned. Indeed, that independence is one of the virtues that Opposition Members have cited in arguing for its retention. However, the same applies to what the hon. Member for Billericay said about local authorities.
	Any organisation that bids to be a host must demonstrate that it is best equipped to win the contract. That must include being able to declare its interests and manage any potential conflicts of interest. The host will be accountable to the LINK and required to follow its direction, irrespective of its own interests. The sort of organisations that we expect to become hosts deal with such issues all the time, as do local authorities. Many of the current providers of staff support to patients forums also provide health and social care services. We know that potential conflicts of interest do not mean that support is compromised in those cases. The quality of the performance is what counts. I accept as a debating point that there may be circumstances in which there appears to be a conflict of interest. However, in practice, one has to strike a sensible balance.
	There is a national body and centre of excellence to improve public and patient involvement. However, it will be open to LINKs, if they so chooseI imagine that they willto create regional and, indeed, national bodies. Their virtue is that they will be bottom-up bodies that provide even greater independence to the national umbrella body.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) was worried that people who live outside a local authority area cannot join a LINK. I know that she has taken up the cudgels on their behalf and met the relevant body. A LINK is established to consider all the services that are provided in its area. Those outside can join the neighbouring LINK. Provision will be supplemented by the many interested people in Plymouth who are not currently in the forum. We described the position as the Great Ormond Street problem, whereby services are provided outside the local authority area. Our proposals are an improvement on the current situation.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made important points, which were raised in Committee, about the word significant and the impact on public-private relations. A change in the service provider rather than in the service providedfor example, the contract to run a GP's surgery changing from one provider to anotherwould not significantly change the service. Another example of that is dealing with overcapacity, wherebytaking account of peaks and troughsfive beds are removed from a 10-bed ward in which only five are ever used. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is therefore right that the definition of significant is important.
	However, amendment is unnecessary. Significant changes include changes in: patients' convenience; availability and quality of service; and geography, thereby affecting travel arrangements, and possible eligibility. Statutory guidance, which has the power of statute, will be issued after we have consulted on the changes.

Phil Woolas: I am trying to make the point that the change in the service rather than that in the service provider is important. Let me reassure my hon. Friend. One of the difficulties in the debate is that we are comparing existing scrutiny arrangements in the health service with proposals that cover health and social services. Points have been made about inspection and viewing. At the moment, patients forums do not view social services. We are talking about going into people's homesresidential, shared homes and individuals' homes. The comparison is therefore invalid.
	We are trying to create a scrutiny and accountability structure that considers the patient, not the building or institution. All Members of Parliament recognise that, when constituents come to us with a problem, the interaction between public agencies and other providers most often causes the problemfor example, a stroke victim's treatment by the ambulance service, accident and emergency, the hospital, those responsible for aftercare, the benefits office and so on. We are trying to provide for accountability and scrutiny in the round in the patient and public involvement forums.

Paul Truswell: May I take the Minister back to the example I cited of the independent sector treatment centre? The concern in West Yorkshire about such a centre was that it would be a transfer not just of services but of resources, which would undermine the ability of existing NHS trusts to provide services to other patients. The Minister seems to argue that people would not regard that as a significant change, but I have to tell him that people in West Yorkshire and Leeds would view it as a significant change.

Phil Woolas: Let me make some progress and we will see whether I have failed to cover the relevant points.
	Some hon. Members made a point about the difference between inspecting and viewing, but I rather think that this is dancing on a pin head. Patients forums and the proposed LINKs are not inspectors of services in the sense that the statutory inspectorate is. Again, however, hon. Gentlemen cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot on the one hand complain about intrusion into private life, while on the other allow unfettered access, particularly in the area of social care, but also in respect of medical care.
	Secondly, we hear complaints about over-intrusion by inspectorates. Assuming that patients forums and LINKs were inspectorates, it would be quite right and proper for them to act as gatekeepers to ensure that organisations were not over-burdened. Indeed, Conservative Members supported that proposal. One of the big themes of debate on the Bill has been the allegationtrue on many occasionsthat there is over-burdensome inspection. One of the measures that we have put in place is the gatekeeper role, so that the main inspectoratefor local authorities, the Audit Commissioncan co-ordinate the other inspectorates. Surely the same principle has to apply to LINKs. The hon. Member for Billericay said that we had wasted 120 million in establishing patients forums and then abolishing them. The 120 million that he quotes is indeed the recurrent costs of the years of activitiesnot the costs of establishing the bodies, so I think that the analogy is unfair.

Phil Woolas: Let me make two points. First, the debate is being conducted on the false premise that patient forums are perfect organisations, yet by the hon. Gentleman's own admission the situation is patchy. I supplied figures to the Public Bill Committee and I will not delay the House further by running through them all [Interruption.] That is not my whole point. The hon. Member for Billericay intervenes from a sedentary position before I have reached the conclusion of my premise. I wish that Conservative Members would listen to the argument rather than to who is saying it.
	I have looked into this issue and we debated it in Committee. I strongly believe that the powers of LINKs to enter premises and look at what is going on whether we call it inspection, observation, viewing or whateverare still available, but I do not accept the idea that patients forums or LINKs should be inspectors in the formal sense that the Audit Commission is an inspector. They are notand neither should they be, because they are not qualified to be so. They are looking at this from the point of view of lay viewing or lay inspectionlet us not have an argument about semantics. The point is that what was asked for was that LINKs should be given the right to enter premises. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have that right, and the right to view, observe, monitor and make reports. But we are talking about social care as well as the NHS. We are talking about people's homes. I know what fun Conservative Members have when anyone dares to suggest that a valuation officer should check that people are paying their full council tax, and it really is going too far to say that there should be unfettered access.
	I reject the amendments, and I have made concessions on the points raised in Committee by tabling amendments to satisfy some of the reasonable points that have been made. It is now time to move on, to establish LINKs, to trust local authorities, to have flexibility and to create a body that can hold to account our national health service and the social services from the point of view of the patient, not the provider.
	 Amendment agreed to.
	 Amendment made: No. 33, page 121, line 25, leave out ',varying or omitting'. [Mr. Woolas.]

Amendments made: No. 37, page 123, line 14, leave out from 'network' to end of line 16.
	No. 38, line 35, leave out from 'network' to end of line 38.
	No. 39, line 41, leave out from '172(2)' to end ofline 43. [Mr. Woolas.]

Amendment made: No. 6, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert
	'(2) But where the Secretary of State has made a request under section 4 in relation to the proposal received in response to the invitation or direction, he may not make an order or decision under this section before the end of six weeks beginning with the relevant date (as defined by section 6(7)).
	(3) The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (1)(a) implementing a proposal unless he has consulted the following about the proposal
	(a) every authority affected by the proposal (except the authority or authorities which made it); and
	(b) any other person he believes to have an interest.
	(4) For the purposes of this section an authority is affected by a proposal if it is a principal authority for an area which is, or any part of which is, in an area that the proposal suggests should have a single tier of local government.
	(5) Subsection (3) does not apply if the proposal was made jointly by every authority affected by it, and in that case the Secretary of State may before making an order undersubsection (1)(a) consult any other person he believes to have an interest.'. [Mr.  Alan  Campbell.]

'(1) Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (reports on investigations) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (1) substitute
	(1) If a Local Commissioner completes an investigation of a matter, he shall prepare a report of the results of the investigation and send a copy to each of the persons concerned (subject to subsection (1A)).
	(1A) If, after the investigation of a matter is completed, the Local Commissioner decides
	(a) that he is satisfied with action which the authority concerned have taken or propose to take, and
	(b) that it is not appropriate to prepare and send a copy of a report under subsection (1),
	he may instead prepare a statement of his reasons for the decision and send a copy to each of the persons concerned.
	(1B) If a Local Commissioner decides
	(a) not to investigate a matter, or
	(b) to discontinue an investigation of a matter,
	he shall prepare a statement of his reasons for the decision and send a copy to each of the persons concerned.
	(1C) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (1B), the persons concerned are
	(a) the complainant (if any),
	(b) any person who referred the matter undersection 26C(2),
	(c) the authority concerned, and
	(d) any other authority or person who is alleged in the complaint, or who otherwise appears to the Local Commissioner, to have taken or authorised the action which is or would be the subject of the investigation.
	(3) In subsection (2), for the complaint substitute a complaint about the matter.
	(4) In subsection (2AA)(a), for the duty imposed by subsection (1)(c) above substitute the duty to send a report or statement to the Authority under subsection (1), (1A) or (1B).
	(5) In subsection (3)
	(a) after report (in each place) insert or statement;
	(b) for the interests of the complainant and of persons other than the complainant substitute the interests of the complainant (if any) and of other persons.
	(6) In subsection (3AA), after report insert or statement.
	(7) After subsection (3A) insert
	(3B) Subsections (4) to (8) apply in the case of a report under subsection (1).
	(8) In subsection (7), for the interests of the complainant and of persons other than the complainant substitute the interests of the complainant (if any) and of other persons.'. [Mr.  Alan  Campbell.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bob Neill: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. Perhaps I can briefly set out a little of the background. For 29 years, a contraflow system has operated during the morning peak hour in the Blackwall tunnel. That means that there are three lanes of traffic going northbound from south-east London and Kent into London, and one lane of traffic going south. That sensibly reflects the demands of the traffic at that time of the day. On20 April, Transport for London, which took over responsibility for the Blackwall tunnel in 2000, with the creation of the Greater London authority, terminated that contraflow operation at something less than48 hours notice. The effect of that was to reduce the capacity on the principal arterial route from south-east London, Kent and even the channel ports into London by one third at the busiest time of day.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend makes two important points: first, that the issue goes well beyond the London boundary, which is why I am raising it with the Minister tonight; and secondly, that it is not just a matter of inconvenience for commuters, but does economic harm and harm to business. He also draws attention to the fact that the people who use the Blackwall tunnel at that time of day do not do so for the sake of their health, despite the rather extraordinary comment of a Transport for London official, who said that many of the people using the tunnel could choose to do otherwise. They do it because they have no alternative. That is why the issue is so important.
	That importance has been reflected in correspondence and in a number of website petitions. The decision has been condemned by the AA, by the RAC Foundation, by the Association of British Drivers, by London Councils, on behalf of all the London boroughs on a cross-party basis, and by other local authorities.
	Two issues arise: first, the justification for the decision itself, and secondly, the complete lack of consultation, debate or any assessment of alternatives. That second point goes to the heart of the lack of accountability of Transport for London to Londoners and their elected representatives.
	Ostensibly, the decision is said to have been made on the advice of the Metropolitan police because there had been an increasing number of near misses and there was a road safety hazard. Obviously, that is something that we want to look into, but we have to remember that the scheme has been operating for the better part of 30 years, while volumes of traffic have increased, which is not likely to have happened overnight.
	Very little evidence has been released by TFL to justify the decision, and such as there is, frankly, flimsy. The material that we have so fargetting information out of TFL is like drawing teethindicates that there have been 99 accidents in the area of the tunnel over the last three years. I am not aware of any fatalities, or of the seriousness of any of the accidents. When we look further, however, we find that only six of them occurred during the period that the tidal flow is in operation. That is an average of two a yearhardly a significant figure, given the volume of traffic on that road. It probably compares pretty well with the figures for many of the routes coming into London at that time of day. That is a wholly inadequate evidential basis for taking such a major step.
	The evidence raises a number of other questions. There is closed circuit television in the tunnel. TFL relied on evidence of near misses. As the RAC legitimately points out, if some peoplea minority of driversare driving badly, the first thing that TFL and the police should do is prosecute those people, because they have the footage to do so. We have no evidence of any prosecutions being mounted. It is wrong to use the misbehaviour of a minority to cancel a scheme that benefits the vast law-abiding majority.
	In addition, it would have been possible to consider a much more rigorous prosecution policyto publicise the prosecutions, as has been done successfully for drink-driving and for assaults on TFL staff. Why not consider having a visible police presence at the entry and exit to the tunnel? We could look at installing much more warning signage before and inside the tunnel. We could consider having cameras showing average speeds, which are already installed in the Limehouse link, not far away. All those alternatives should have been considered before this drastic step was taken.
	A second point that TFL relied on was guidance under a European directive, but when we examined that we found that it applies to the trans-European network, of which the Blackwall tunnel is not part, so that hardly stacks up either.
	As for the complete lack of consultation, it has become apparent that TFL had some concerns about the issue when a report by Capita, its favourite consultant, was submitted in 2005. One might have thought from TFL's justification for the decision that it was a sudden and urgent matter, but in fact it was an issue in 2005. The obvious and responsible thing to do would have been to bring it into the public domain then, so that all those alternatives that I have just listed could have been raised with the local authorities, the Highways Agency, the Department for Transportand, indeed, the travelling public. We could have had a sensible debate about how to resolve the problem, if there was one. None of that was done.
	We have also discovered that on 12 Januarythe Minister kindly confirmed this for meTFL discussed with the Highways Agency the potential cessation of the contraflow. It claims that it also discussed it with the London borough of Greenwich, which is where the tunnel comes out, although the people there are by no means the most affected by the decision. In fact, the London borough of Greenwich says it has no record of any such meeting or discussion taking place. Someone is not telling the truthand my money is on the London borough of Greenwich being right.
	There was no consultation, but if TFL was making the proposal in January, why did it not bring the matter in the public domain at that time? Still nothing was done. The decision was taken at a meeting of the Transport for London road traffic boardapparently a private meetingon 28 March. It was recommended that a communications and consultation strategy be put in place, building up to a closure of the scheme on 30 July. In fact there was no such communication or consultation, and there was an abrupt closure on30 April. No evidence has been adduced and no reason has ever been given for that change of tack in TFL's handling of the matter.
	I regret to say that such behaviour is absolutely typical of Transport for London. It has formform as long as your arm, to use a lawyer's phrasein terms of operating in a high-handed fashion, keeping decisions close and within itself, and not consulting partners. Its failure to consult has been criticised by the London assembly, criticised on the Floor of the House during debates on the Greater London Authority Bill, and repeatedly criticised in the press. TFL's behaviour meant that the assembly, which is charged with oversight of London policy, had no opportunity to debate the proposala significant strategic matterin advance. That was wrong. What on earth was Transport for London hiding?
	We know that there are likely to be effects on the national road network. There must be a risk of effects on the Dartford crossing, through displacement, and on the new Thames Gateway bridge, which is being considered by the Department for Transport. None of that has been brought into the public domain. That is the second real rub. A decision was taken based on the most dubious and limited evidence, and no attempt was made to take public opinion along or to consult partners. On any view, that cannot be right. Such conduct certainly ignores the guidance issued under the Highways Act 1980 that there should be consultation on such matters.
	I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), does not have direct managerial responsibility for this matter, and I am grateful to her for the assistance that she has given. However, she can put pressure on Transport for London and the Mayor, and can point out that there are implications that go beyond their own little bailiwick, and that other ways of dealing with the matter should be considered. I hope that she will consider whether her Department should contact the Mayor and Transport for London as a matter of urgency, and say that the issue should be reviewed.
	Perhaps the Department could say that the contraflow should be reinstated until such time as there has been a proper risk assessment and public debate, all the evidence has been put in the public domain, and all the alternatives have been looked at. Then we will be able to consider the options in a mature fashion and come to a decision that has some chance of taking the travelling public with it. Unless that is done, it will inevitably be believed that Transport for London has a hidden agenda. It is ironic that only a matter of weeks before, the Mayor had to backtrack on the suggestion of introducing a congestion zone in the Greenwich area around the Blackwall tunnel. It would be in their own interests for TFL and the Mayor to be up-front with people about what is driving the decision.
	I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall simply say that I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue, which affects hundreds of thousands of people in London and the south-east.

David Evennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for allowing me to make a short contribution to his Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on obtaining the debate and on his excellent speech. He has set out well the concerns about the termination of the Blackwall tunnel peak-hour contraflow, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is a rational and reasonable woman, listened avidly to what he said. I hope that she will take on board his comments and make representations to the Mayor and Transport for London after the debate.
	The lack of consultation, the speed with which the change was implemented, the failure of TFL andthe police to give the real facts and figures behind the termination, the consequent problems of traffic congestion and the increase in pollution are the real issues that need to be addressed, and that is what we are debating this evening. Of course, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) said, we are all concerned about road safety, the consequence of accidents in the tunnel and the deteriorating standards of driving on our roads. Those are worrying issues and they need to be addressed. However, the contraflow has been in operation for nearly 30 years.
	There are driving and safety issues for both tunnels, and not just during the contraflow. The behaviour of some of the drivers in the tunnel when the contraflow is not in place is quite appalling. Why are the offenders not severely punished? There should be more traffic cameras and more investment in the tunnels. The police should do more, and there could perhaps be notices warning motorists that crossing the white lines or overtaking in the tunnel will result in tough punishment. People in lorries, cars vans or motorbikes who drive dangerously, cross the white line, overtake or drive badly, or in some cases disastrously, would then face really tough punishments.
	Does TFL have any long-term plans? The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead said that the situation needs to be improved; perhaps we should consider a bridge over the Blackwall tunnel, just as at Dartford, but we would not want it to be tolled, as the bridge at Dartford is. The costs of that toll are going up, and that will be a problem for those who have to pay the extra cost every time they cross.
	In conclusion, problems include the speed with which the change was implemented, the failure to discuss and debate, and the inability of TFL and the police to get the information into the public domain. The public should know that information, so that the bodies concerned can take the public with them, whatever decisions are taken in future. In the short term, I hope that the contraflow will be reopened and that more consultation and discussion will take place on this important issue.

Gillian Merron: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this debate on what is clearly an important matter not only for his constituents, but for many constituents of other Members present and of those Members who could not be with us. I appreciate its seriousness and I also appreciate the manner in which Members have raised their concerns this evening.
	As hon. Members know, responsibility for operating the Blackwall tunnel lies with Transport for London, which maintains it and takes operational decisions on its use, in conjunction with the Metropolitan police. However, the Government do of course take an interest in how TFL operates its network and the outcomes, not least because reducing congestion and improving road safety are of paramount importance to us. We work in the expectation that TFL delivers on both those objectives.
	Let me give a little of the background history. The tidal flow system was introduced in 1978 in Blackwall's southbound tunnel. During brief periods during the morning peak, one of the two lanes in the southbound tunnel was turned over to northbound traffic, which was done in response to traffic patterns at the time. The decision to run a tidal flow system in the Blackwall tunnel was never an ideal solution. Although it made more efficient use of the tunnel, it has become less efficient as traffic flows have changed. Operating a tidal flow system also introduced head-on traffic conditions. TFL tells me that that risk of accidents has risen under that system and is far higher than under a single-flow traffic system.
	The Metropolitan police operate tidal flow at Blackwall. They observe traffic levels and take operational decisions on exactly when the tidal flow should be opened during the morning peak. It is incumbent on TFL to respect their views when making strategic decisions on the safety of the tunnel's operation, and TFL can only operate the tidal flow system with the support of the Metropolitan police, who recently approached TFL with reports of increasing levels of dangerous driver behaviour in the southbound tunnel. They were particularly concerned about the increasing number of drivers overtaking in the tunnel.
	The Metropolitan police were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with having to operate the tidal flow, and the issue was brought to a head by accidents in the tunnel on 10 and 17 April. However, it was not just a question of the increasing risk of accidents. A crash in the tunnel could have appalling consequences, such as a fire, or the huge disruption that TFL was mindful might result from a major incident in the tunnel. Such an incident could mean the total closure of one tunnel, and possibly both.
	TFL's safety record is impressive, and like the Government it is meeting challenging targets to reduce road casualties.